Page Range | 51301-51619 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
83 FR 51619 - Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 303 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as Amended | |
83 FR 51617 - Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 303 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as Amended | |
83 FR 51615 - Columbus Day, 2018 | |
83 FR 51613 - Fire Prevention Week, 2018 | |
83 FR 51451 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
83 FR 51450 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
83 FR 51541 - Fortress Investment Group LLC-Continuance in Control Exemption-Central Maine & Quebec Railway US Inc., Ohio River Partners Shareholder LLC, and DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC | |
83 FR 51472 - Update to the 2016 National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) Guidelines; Correction | |
83 FR 51453 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License | |
83 FR 51452 - Application to Export Electric Energy; Guzman Energy LLC | |
83 FR 51543 - Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance; General Wayne A. Downing Peoria International Airport, Peoria, IL | |
83 FR 51567 - Interest Rate Paid on Cash Deposited To Secure U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Bonds | |
83 FR 51360 - Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances; Withdrawal | |
83 FR 51315 - Amendment of Chicago Class B and Chicago Class C Airspace; Chicago, IL | |
83 FR 51316 - Provisions Pertaining to Certain Investments in the United States by Foreign Persons | |
83 FR 51450 - Notice of Two-Year Extension of TRICARE Co-Pay Waiver at Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center Demonstration Project | |
83 FR 51464 - Advisory Committee; Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee, Renewal | |
83 FR 51322 - Determination and Temporary Provisions Pertaining to a Pilot Program To Review Certain Transactions Involving Foreign Persons and Critical Technologies | |
83 FR 51565 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; U.S. Individual Income Tax Return | |
83 FR 51542 - Washington Eastern Railroad, LLC-Change in Operators Exemption-Eastern Washington Gateway Railroad Company | |
83 FR 51540 - David L. Durbano-Continuance in Control Exemption-Washington Eastern Railroad, LLC | |
83 FR 51400 - Prohibiting Persons With Certain Criminal Convictions From Serving as Representative Payees | |
83 FR 51465 - Charter Renewal of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections | |
83 FR 51459 - Notice of Tentative Approval and Opportunity for Public Comment and Public Hearing for Public Water System Supervision Program Revision for Pennsylvania | |
83 FR 51545 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
83 FR 51456 - Notice of Settlement: Arkla Terra Property Suprfund Site, Thonotosassa, Hillsborough County, Florida | |
83 FR 51338 - Safety Zone; Transmission Line Survey, Tennessee River Mile Marker 300 to 302, Decatur, AL | |
83 FR 51506 - Renewed Operating License No. NPF-12; Combined License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94; and the General License for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI); In the Matter of Dominion Energy, Inc., and SCANA Corporation Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 1, 2, and 3, and the ISFSI | |
83 FR 51474 - Operations Notice for the Expansion of the Moving to Work Demonstration Program; Republication and Extension of Comment Period | |
83 FR 51502 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
83 FR 51334 - Safety Zone; Ohio River, Cincinnati, OH | |
83 FR 51390 - Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 2018 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for Gulf of Mexico Gray Triggerfish | |
83 FR 51399 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 620 in the Gulf of Alaska | |
83 FR 51449 - National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS); Executive Council Meeting | |
83 FR 51544 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information Collection | |
83 FR 51444 - Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2016 | |
83 FR 51435 - Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
83 FR 51440 - Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Turkey: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2016 | |
83 FR 51442 - Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
83 FR 51439 - Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
83 FR 51436 - Laminated Woven Sacks From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
83 FR 51446 - Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 2016 | |
83 FR 51538 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the State of South Carolina | |
83 FR 51504 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act | |
83 FR 51447 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
83 FR 51539 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Territory of Guam | |
83 FR 51448 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
83 FR 51304 - Korea Electric Power Corporation; Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co., Ltd. Advanced Power Reactor 1400 | |
83 FR 51500 - Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination To Institute a Modification and Rescission Proceeding; Modification and Rescission of Certain Remedial Orders; and Termination of the Proceeding | |
83 FR 51539 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of California | |
83 FR 51451 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program General Forbearance Request | |
83 FR 51539 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Nebraska | |
83 FR 51451 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Guaranty Agencies Security Self-Assessment and Attestation | |
83 FR 51540 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the State of California | |
83 FR 51538 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New York | |
83 FR 51359 - POSTNET Barcode | |
83 FR 51512 - New Postal Products | |
83 FR 51461 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
83 FR 51505 - Renewal of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Data Users Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 51505 - Technical Advisory Committee; Renewal of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Technical Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 51506 - National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH); Charter Renewal | |
83 FR 51464 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approvals | |
83 FR 51509 - La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment | |
83 FR 51448 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Fisher Behavior and Protected Species Interactions in Hawai'i and American Samoa Longline Fisheries | |
83 FR 51465 - Advisory Committee; Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee, Renewal | |
83 FR 51521 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 to a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the GraniteShares Bitcoin ETF and the GraniteShares Short Bitcoin ETF, a Series of the GraniteShares ETP Trust, Under Rule 14.11(f)(4), Trust Issued Receipts | |
83 FR 51457 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) | |
83 FR 51520 - Securities Exchange Act of 1934 | |
83 FR 51531 - In the Matter of the NYSE Arca, Inc. For an Order of Disapproval of Proposed Rule Change Relating To Listing and Trading of the Direxion Daily Bitcoin Bear 1X Shares, Direxion Daily Bitcoin 1.25X Bull Shares, Direxion Daily Bitcoin 1.5X Bull Shares, Direxion Daily Bitcoin 2X Bull Shares, and Direxion Daily Bitcoin 2X Bear Shares Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E (File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-02); Order Scheduling Filing of Statements on Review | |
83 FR 51503 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993; American Society of Mechanical Engineers | |
83 FR 51469 - Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 51467 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 51471 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 51468 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 51466 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 51470 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 51466 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 51520 - In the Matter of the Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; For an Order of Disapproval of Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade the Shares of the GraniteShares Bitcoin ETF and the GraniteShares Short Bitcoin ETF (File No. SR-CboeBZX-2018-001); Order Scheduling Filing of Statements on Review | |
83 FR 51453 - Tradewind Energy, Inc. v. Southern Company Services, Inc.; Notice of Complaint | |
83 FR 51504 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-ODPi, Inc. | |
83 FR 51504 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-ASTM International Standards | |
83 FR 51469 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 51467 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 51469 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 51467 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 51468 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 51455 - Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, Protests, Recommendations, and Terms and Conditions; Boise Project Board of Control | |
83 FR 51466 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 51460 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings (Renewal) | |
83 FR 51458 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Carbon Black, Ethylene, Cyanide and Spandex (Renewal) | |
83 FR 51456 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelters (Renewal) | |
83 FR 51435 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Tennessee Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 51459 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Renewal) | |
83 FR 51454 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
83 FR 51454 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
83 FR 51472 - Determination Pursuant to Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as Amended | |
83 FR 51512 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
83 FR 51563 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee | |
83 FR 51564 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee | |
83 FR 51563 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee | |
83 FR 51564 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee | |
83 FR 51564 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee | |
83 FR 51543 - Projects Approved for Minor Modifications | |
83 FR 51543 - Projects Rescinded for Consumptive Uses of Water | |
83 FR 51542 - Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of Water | |
83 FR 51565 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee | |
83 FR 51565 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee | |
83 FR 51503 - Renewal of Charter of Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations | |
83 FR 51503 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 51535 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Allow Flexible Exchange Equity Options Where the Underlying Security is an Exchange-Traded Fund That Is Included in the Option Penny Pilot To Be Settled in Cash | |
83 FR 51512 - Self-Regulatory Organizations: Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Correct Several Typographical Errors in IEX Rule 2.160 Added by a Previous Filing | |
83 FR 51532 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend CAB Rule 331 (Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program) To Conform to FinCEN's Final Rule on Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions | |
83 FR 51514 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule 7730 To Remove Computer-to-Computer Interface as a Technological Option for TRACE Reporting | |
83 FR 51518 - Self-Regulatory Organizations: Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change by MIAX PEARL, LLC To Amend Exchange Rule 203, Qualification and Registration of Members and Associated Persons, Relating to Registration and Qualification Examinations Required for Members and Associated Persons of Members That Engage in Trading Activities on the Exchange | |
83 FR 51529 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rules 203, Qualification and Registration of Members and Associated Persons, 1301, Registration of Options Principals, and 1302, Registration of Representatives, Relating to Registration and Qualification Examinations Required for Members and Associated Persons of Members That Engage in Trading Activities on the Exchange | |
83 FR 51515 - Self-Regulatory Organizations: Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify Its Fee Schedule To Specify the Circumstances Under Which the Exchange Will Aggregate the Activity of Affiliated Members for Purposes of Applying the Provisions of Rule 11.170(a) Related to the IEMM Program | |
83 FR 51501 - Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin From China and India; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Antidumping Duty Investigations | |
83 FR 51449 - Developing the Administration's Approach to Consumer Privacy | |
83 FR 51499 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; North American Breeding Bird Survey | |
83 FR 51426 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; Traceability Information Program for Seafood | |
83 FR 51470 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request Extension; DERT Extramural Grantee Data Collection (NIEHS) | |
83 FR 51540 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
83 FR 51391 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna and Northern Albacore Tuna Quotas; Atlantic Bigeye and Yellowfin Tuna Size Limit Regulations | |
83 FR 51336 - Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Mile 182.5, St. Louis, MO | |
83 FR 51462 - Information Collection; Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 23 Requirements | |
83 FR 51461 - Submission for OMB Review; Delivery Schedules | |
83 FR 51506 - National Council on the Arts 195th Meeting | |
83 FR 51418 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Black Pinesnake | |
83 FR 51361 - Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Approval of Sulfur Dioxide Regulations | |
83 FR 51340 - Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board | |
83 FR 51369 - Annual Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustment | |
83 FR 51424 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pelagics Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; Amendment 31 | |
83 FR 51403 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Wyoming; Revisions to Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Revisions to Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan | |
83 FR 51570 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat Designation for Atlantic Pigtoe | |
83 FR 51301 - General Administrative Regulations; Reinsurance Agreement-Standards for Approval; Regulations for the 2019 and Subsequent Reinsurance Years. | |
83 FR 51366 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Nitrogen Oxides (NOX | |
83 FR 51313 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes | |
83 FR 51304 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes |
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Antitrust Division
Labor Statistics Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.
Final rule.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) finalizes the General Administrative Regulations; Subpart L—Reinsurance Agreement—Standards for Approval; Regulations for the 2019 and Subsequent Reinsurance Years. The intended effect of this action is to clarify and improve Subpart L to better align with the existing Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA) and Livestock Price Reinsurance Agreement (LPRA) and to eliminate language that is no longer relevant.
This rule is effective November 13, 2018.
David L. Miller, Director, Reinsurance Services Division, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0801, Washington, DC 20250, telephone (202) 720-9830.
This rule finalizes changes to the General Administrative Regulations; Subpart L—Reinsurance Agreement—Standards for Approval; Regulations for the 2019 and Subsequent Reinsurance Years (7 CFR part 400, subpart L), that were published by FCIC on February 8, 2018, as a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
A total of one comment was received from one commenter. The commenter was an insurance company.
The public comment received regarding the proposed rule and FCIC's response to the comment is as follows:
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule. Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” requires that, in order to manage the costs required to comply with Federal regulations, that for every new significant or economically significant regulation issued, the new costs must be offset by the elimination of at least two prior regulations. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13771.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 0563-0069.
FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
FCIC has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to its knowledge,
FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the amount of an indemnity payment in the event of an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act (Act) authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from beginning farmers or ranchers and limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of Federal crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have an impact on small entities, and, therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605). This regulation pertains to all legal entities wanting a Reinsurance Agreement, to insure financial stability and capacity under this regulation.
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. Interpretations of statutory and regulatory provisions are matters of general applicability and, therefore, no administrative appeals process is available and judicial review may only be brought to challenge the interpretation after seeking a determination of appeal ability by the Director of the National Appeals Division (NAD) in accordance with 7 CFR part 11. An interpretation of a policy provision not codified in the Code of Federal Regulations or any procedure used in the administration of any Federal crop insurance program are administratively appealable and the appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action for judicial review may be brought against FCIC.
This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.
Administrative practice and procedure, crop insurance, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, FCIC amends 7 CFR part 400 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(o)
In addition to the terms defined in the Standard Reinsurance Agreement, Livestock Price Reinsurance Agreement and any other Reinsurance Agreement, the following terms as used in this rule are defined to mean:
(a) The eighteen qualification ratios include:
(1) Thirteen National Association of Insurance Commissioner's (NAIC) Insurance Regulatory Information System (IRIS) ratios found in paragraphs (b)(1) through (12) and (17) of this section and referenced in “Using the NAIC Insurance Regulatory Information System” distributed by NAIC, 1100 Walnut St., Suite 1500, Kansas City, MO 64106-2197;
(2) Three ratios used by A.M. Best Company found in paragraphs (b)(13), (15), and (16) of this section and referenced in Best's Key Rating Guide, A.M. Best, Ambest Road, Oldwick, N.J. 08858-0700;
(3) One ratio found in paragraph (b)(14) of this section which is formulated by FCIC and is calculated the same as the One-Year Change to Surplus IRIS ratio but for a two-year period; and
(4) One ratio found in paragraph (b)(18) of this section, which is reported
(b) The Company shall provide an explanation for any ratio falling outside of the following requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (18):
The standards contained herein shall be applicable to a Company applying for and those maintaining a Reinsurance Agreement.
FCIC will offer a Reinsurance Agreement to an eligible Company as determined by FCIC. To be eligible and qualify initially or thereafter for a Reinsurance Agreement with FCIC, a Company must:
(a) Be licensed or admitted in any state, territory, or possession of the United States;
(b) Be licensed or admitted, or use as a policy-issuing company, an insurance company that is licensed or admitted, in each state where the Company will write policies under a Reinsurance Agreement;
(c) Have surplus, as reported in its most recent Annual or Quarterly Statutory Financial Statement, that is at least equal to twice the MPUL amount for the Company's estimated retained premium submitted in its plan of operation.
(d) The Company shall have the financial and operational resources, including but not limited to, organization, experience, internal controls, technical skills, positive assessment of the ratio results appearing in Section 400.162 as well as meet methodologies, data submission requirements and assessment contained in Appendix II (Plan of Operations) of the Reinsurance Agreement to meet the requirements, including addressing reasonable risks, associated with a Reinsurance Agreement, as determined by FCIC.
(e) The Company shall provide data and demonstrate a satisfactory performance record to obtain a Reinsurance Agreement and continue to hold a Reinsurance Agreement for the reinsurance year as determined by FCIC.
(a) If the Company believes that the FCIC has taken an action that is not in accordance with the provisions of a Reinsurance Agreement except compliance issues, it may request the Deputy Administrator of Insurance Services to make a final administrative determination addressing the disputed action. The Deputy Administrator of Insurance Services will render the final administrative determination of the FCIC with respect to the applicable actions. All requests for a final administrative determination must be in writing and submitted within 45 days after receipt after the disputed action.
(b) With respect to compliance matters, the Compliance Field Office renders an initial finding, permits the Company to respond, and then issues a final finding. If the Company believes that the Compliance Field Office's final finding is not in accordance with the applicable laws, regulations, custom or practice of the insurance industry, or FCIC approved policy and procedure, it may request the Deputy Administrator of Compliance to make a final administrative determination addressing the disputed final finding. The Deputy Administrator of Compliance will render the final administrative determination of the FCIC with respect to the final finding. All requests for a final administrative determination must be in writing and submitted within 45 days after receipt of the final finding.
(c) A Company may also request reconsideration by the Deputy Administrator of Insurance Services of a decision of the FCIC rendered under any FCIC bulletin or directive which bulletin or directive does not interpret, explain, or restrict the terms of the Reinsurance Agreement. The Company, if it disputes the FCIC's determination, must request a reconsideration of that determination in writing, within 45 days of the receipt of the determination. The determination of the Deputy Administrator of Insurance Services will be final and binding on the Company. Such determinations will not be appealable to the Board of Contract Appeals.
(d) Appealable final administrative determinations of the FCIC under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section may be appealed to the Board of Contract Appeals in accordance with 48 CFR part 6102 and with the provisions 7 CFR part 24.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Standard design approval; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a standard design approval (SDA) to Korea Electric Power Corporation and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co., Ltd (KEPCO/KHNP) for the advanced power reactor 1400 (APR1400) standard design. The SDA allows the APR1400 standard design to be referenced in an application for a construction permit or operating license, or an application for a combined license or manufacturing license under its regulations.
The Standard Design Approval was issued on September 28, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0021 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
William R. Ward, Office of New Reactors, telephone: 301-415-7038, email:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a standard design approval (SDA) to Korea Electric Power Corporation and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co., Ltd (KEPCO/KHNP) for the advanced power reactor 1400 (APR1400) standard design under Subpart E, “Standard Design Approvals,” of title 10 of the
Issuance of this SDA signifies completion of the NRC staff's technical review of KEPCO/KHNP's APR1400 design. The NRC staff performed its technical review of the APR1400 design control document in accordance with the standards for review of standard design approval applications set forth in 10 CFR 52.139, “Standards for Review of Applications.”
On the basis of its evaluation and independent analyses, as described in the FSER, the NRC staff concludes that KEPCO/KHNP's application for standard design approval meets the applicable portions of 10 CFR 52.137, “Content of Applications; Technical Information,” and the review standards identified in 10 CFR 52.139.
Copies of the APR1400 FSER and SDA have been placed in the NRC's Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, for review and copying by interested persons.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737 airplanes, excluding Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes; all Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes; and all Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of latently failed motor-operated valve (MOV) actuators of the fuel shutoff valves. This AD requires replacing certain MOV actuators of the fuel shutoff valves for the left and right engines (on certain airplanes) and of the auxiliary power unit (APU) fuel shutoff valve (on Model 757 and Model 767 airplanes); and revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate certain airworthiness limitations (AWLs). We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 15, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 15, 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
Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3553; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes; Model 757 airplanes; and Model 767 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We subsequently issued a supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Model 737 airplanes, excluding Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes; and all Model 757 and 767 airplanes. The SNPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address a latent failure of the actuator for the engine or APU fuel shutoff valves, which could result in the inability to shut off fuel to the engine or the APU, and, in case of certain engine or APU fires, could result in structural failure.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the SNPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing requested that we revise the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) to exclude Model 737-8 airplanes and future Model 737 airplanes, because MOV actuator part number MA30A1017 (Boeing P/N S343T003-76) is the only certified MOV actuator for use on any future Model 737 airplanes as documented in the drawings and Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC). The commenter stated that using airworthiness limitations to prohibit the use of parts with AD restrictions on one minor model series (Model 737 next generation (NG) airplanes) from being used on a different minor model series (Model 737-8 and future Model 737 airplanes) that does not allow the use of the restricted parts is unnecessary and implies that certified configurations and ADs can be overridden via an Advisory Circular (AC) or other means.
We disagree with the commenter's request. The MOV actuator currently allowed on Model 737-8 and 737-9 airplanes, part number MA30A1017 (Boeing P/N S343T003-76), is the only part number certificated on those models, as documented in the manufacturer's drawings. However, manufacturer's proprietary drawings are not readily available to all affected operators, and there is no prohibition against installing MOV actuator part numbers that were determined unsafe in this AD. We have been informed by operators that the practice of rotating physically interchangeable parts among airplanes is widespread, and even a key part of their operations. In the absence of an AD or AWL that restricts the installation of the affected parts, we cannot be assured that the unsafe condition will not be introduced to Model 737-8, 737-9, and future 737 airplanes. In addition, ACs are advisory in nature and do not include mandatory actions. Therefore, ACs do not take precedence over ADs. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.
Boeing requested that we remove paragraph (j) of the proposed AD and revise FAA AC 120-77 or other applicable advisory material to preclude installation of equipment that both Boeing and the FAA have determined cause a potential safety issue, against certified configurations. Boeing suggested that listing parts that are not approved for use on a given model sets a precedent that can become unmanageable, and that identifying parts that are acceptable for a given airplane and installation position is a more explicit and manageable approach. Boeing added that the use of AWLs to prohibit AD-driven part installations is unnecessary and implies that certified configurations and ADs can be overridden via an AC or other means.
We disagree with the commenter's request. The FAA is currently considering revising AC 120-77 to help prevent the rotation of parts as a minor alteration. However, ACs are advisory in nature and do not include mandatory actions. Therefore, ACs cannot prohibit the installation of unsafe equipment, and they do not take precedence over ADs. In addition, the practice of rotating parts is widespread, and revising the AC will not improve the situation in a timely manner. Certain MOV actuator part numbers have been identified to be unsafe for installation at certain locations. Since those part numbers continue to be available and acceptable for installation at certain other locations, we consider the use of AWLs to prohibit specific parts installation to be a reasonable way to address the safety concern in a timely manner. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.
FedEx requested that we revise paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) to state that no replacement is necessary if the MOV actuator part number is one of the following alternative part numbers: AV-31-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-111), MA11A1265 (Boeing P/N S343T003-14), or MA11A1265-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-41). FedEx stated that the service information specified in paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) explicitly state that those alternative MOV actuator part numbers are acceptable substitutes for P/N MA30A1017 (Boeing P/N S343T003-76).
We disagree with the commenter's request. However, we agree to clarify the requirements of paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this AD. Paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this AD require replacement of MOV actuator P/N MA20A2027 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56) and P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-66) with an acceptable MOV actuator part number. Those paragraphs do not state or imply that MOV actuator P/N AV-31-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-111), P/N MA11A1265 (Boeing P/N S343T003-14), or P/N MA11A1265-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-41) must be replaced. Therefore, we consider that adding the
FedEx requested that we revise paragraphs (i)(2) and (i)(3) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) to state that the actuator installation would terminate the daily functional checks required by AWLs 28-AWL-ENG and 28-AWL-APU. The commenter added that installation of MOV actuator part number MA30A1017 (Boeing P/N S343T003-76) or an acceptable alternative part number should substantially increase the safety value.
We disagree with the commenter's request. We have determined that accomplishing the applicable maintenance or inspection program revisions specified in paragraph (j) of this AD are the appropriate terminating actions. As discussed previously in the preamble of the SNPRM, we included the conditions (accomplishing the applicable maintenance or inspection program revisions) that would terminate the requirements of AD 2015-21-10, Amendment 39-18303 (80 FR 65130, October 26, 2015); AD 2015-19-04, Amendment 39-18267 (80 FR 55505, September 16, 2015); and AD 2015-21-09, Amendment 39-18302 (80 FR 65121, October 26, 2015). Those ADs require incorporation of the AWLs that require repetitive inspections of specific MOV actuator part numbers installed at specific locations. The requirements of those ADs may be terminated if the applicable conditions specified in paragraph (m) of this AD are met. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.
Southwest Airlines requested that we refer to the latest revisions of the airworthiness limitations documents.
We agree with the commenter's request and have revised this AD to refer to the current airworthiness limitations as the appropriate source of service information, and have included earlier revisions of the service information as credit in this AD. There are no changes to the required actions of this AD because the tasks that must be incorporated into the maintenance or inspection program are not changed in Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D626A001-9-04, Revision June 2018; Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLS) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622N001-9, Revision May 2018; or Boeing 767-200/300/300F/400 Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D622T001-9-04, Revision March 2018; except for Task 28-AWL-23 for Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes, which adds instructions that further describe the conditions for performing electrical bonding resistance measurements, in addition to being more descriptive regarding cap seal application.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
We reviewed the following service information.
• Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28-1314, dated November 17, 2014, describes procedures for installing new MOV actuators of the fuel shutoff valves for the left and right engines on Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes.
• Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D626A001-9-04, Revision June 2018, describes AWLs for fuel tank ignition prevention on Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes.
• Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-28-0138, Revision 1, dated June 19, 2017, describes procedures for installing new MOV actuators of the fuel shutoff valves for the left and right engines, and of the APU fuel shutoff valve, on Model 757 airplanes.
• Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622N001-9, Revision May 2018, describes AWLs for fuel tank ignition prevention on Model 757 airplanes.
• Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28-0115, Revision 1, dated June 2, 2016, describes procedures for installing new MOV actuators of the fuel shutoff valves for the left and right engines, and of the APU fuel shutoff valve, on Model 767 airplanes.
• Boeing 767-200/300/300F/400 Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D622T001-9-04, Revision March 2018, describes AWLs for fuel tank ignition prevention on Model 767 airplanes.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 2,557 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
For the maintenance/inspection program revision, we have determined that this action takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past,
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 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 November 15, 2018.
This AD affects AD 2015-21-09, Amendment 39-18302 (80 FR 65121, October 26, 2015) (“AD 2015-21-09”); AD 2015-19-04, Amendment 39-18267, (80 FR 55505, September 16, 2015) (“AD 2015-19-04”); and AD 2015-21-10, Amendment 39-18303 (80 FR 65130, October 26, 2015) (“AD 2015-21-10”).
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.
(1) Model 737 airplanes, excluding Model 737-100, Estimated -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes.
(2) Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes.
(3) Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28; Fuel.
This AD was prompted by reports of latently failed motor-operated valve (MOV) actuators of the fuel shutoff valves. We are issuing this AD to prevent a latent failure of the actuator for the engine or auxiliary power unit (APU) fuel shutoff valves, which could result in the inability to shut off fuel to the engine or the APU, and, in case of certain engine or APU fires, could result in structural failure.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes: Within 8 years after the effective date of this AD, do an inspection to determine the part numbers of the MOV actuators of the fuel shutoff valves for the left and right engines, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28-1314, dated November 17, 2014. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the MOV actuator at each location can be conclusively determined from that review.
(2) For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this AD: Within 8 years after the effective date of this AD, do an inspection to determine the part numbers of the MOV actuators of the fuel shutoff valves for the left and right engines, and of the APU fuel shutoff valve, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-28-0138, Revision 1, dated June 19, 2017 (“SB 757-28-0138 R1”); or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28-0115, Revision 1, dated June 2, 2016 (“SB 767-28-0115 R1”); as applicable. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the MOV actuator at each location can be conclusively determined from that review.
(1) For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes on which any MOV actuator having P/N MA20A2027 or P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56 or Boeing P/N S343T003-66, respectively), is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: Within 8 years after the effective date of this AD, replace each affected MOV actuator with an MOV actuator having P/N MA30A1017 (Boeing P/N S343T003-76), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28-1314, dated November 17, 2014. Where Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28-1314, dated November 17, 2014, specifies the installation of a new MOV actuator, this AD allows the installation of a new or serviceable MOV actuator. While not required by this AD, the Accomplishment Instructions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28-1314, dated November 17, 2014, for replacing MOV actuators having Boeing P/N S343T003-66 or Boeing P/N S343T003-56 may be used for replacing MOV actuators having P/N MA20A1001-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-39).
(2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD on which any MOV actuator having P/N MA20A2027 or P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56 or Boeing P/N S343T003-66, respectively) is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD: Within 8 years after the effective date of this AD, replace each affected MOV actuator with an MOV actuator having P/N MA30A1017 (Boeing P/N S343T003-76), P/N
(3) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD on which any MOV actuator having P/N MA20A2027 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56) or P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-66) is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD: Within 8 years after the effective date of this AD, replace each affected MOV actuator with an MOV actuator having P/N MA30A1017 (Boeing P/N S343T003-76), P/N AV-31-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-111), P/N MA11A1265 (Boeing P/N S343T003-14), or P/N MA11A1265-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-41), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SB 767-28-0115 R1. Where SB 767-28-0115 R1 specifies the installation of a new MOV actuator, this AD allows the installation of a new or serviceable MOV actuator. While not required by this AD, the Accomplishment Instructions specified in SB 767-28-0115 R1, for replacing MOV actuators having Boeing P/N S343T003-66 or Boeing P/N S343T003-56 may be used for replacing MOV actuators having P/N MA20A1001-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-39).
(1) For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before the effective date of this AD: Prior to or concurrently with the actions required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to add the airworthiness limitations (AWLs) specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), and (i)(1)(iii) of this AD. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions required by AWL No. 28-AWL-24 is within 6 years since the most recent inspection was performed in accordance with AWL No. 28-AWL-24, or within 6 years since the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1207 were accomplished, whichever is later.
(i) AWL No. 28-AWL-21, Motor Operated Valve (MOV) Actuator—Lightning and Fault Current Protection Electrical Bond, as specified in Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D626A001-9-04, Revision June 2018.
(ii) AWL No. 28-AWL-22, Motor Operated Valve (MOV) Actuator—Electrical Design Feature, as specified in Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D626A001-9-04, Revision June 2018.
(iii) AWL No. 28-AWL-24, Spar Valve Motor Operated Valve (MOV) Actuator—Lightning and Fault Current Protection Electrical Bond, as specified in Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D626A001-9-04, Revision June 2018.
(2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD: Prior to or concurrently with the actions required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to add the AWLs specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i), (i)(2)(ii), and (i)(2)(iii) of this AD. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions required by AWL No. 28-AWL-25 is within 6 years since the most recent inspection was performed in accordance with AWL No. 28-AWL-25, or within 6 years since the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0088 were accomplished, whichever is later.
(i) AWL No. 28-AWL-23, Motor Operated Valve (MOV) Actuator—Lightning and Fault Current Protection Electrical Bond, as specified in Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622N001-9, Revision May 2018.
(ii) AWL No. 28-AWL-24, MOV Actuator—Electrical Design Feature, as specified in Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622N001-9, Revision May 2018.
(iii) AWL No. 28-AWL-25, Motor Operated Valve (MOV) Actuator—Lightning and Fault Current Protection Electrical Bond, as specified in Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622N001-9, Revision May 2018.
(3) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before the effective date of this AD: Prior to or concurrently with the actions required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to add the AWLs specified in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and (i)(3)(ii) of this AD.
(i) AWL No. 28-AWL-23, Motor Operated Valve (MOV) Actuator—Lightning and Fault Current Protection Electrical Bond, as specified in Boeing 767-200/300/300F/400 Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D622T001-9-04, Revision March 2018.
(ii) AWL No. 28-AWL-24, Motor Operated Valve (MOV) Actuator—Electrical Design Feature, as specified in Boeing 767-200/300/300F/400 Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D622T001-9-04, Revision March 2018.
(1) For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes: After accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1), (h)(1), and (i)(1) of this AD, as applicable, on all airplanes in an operator's fleet, and within 8 years after the effective date of the AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the AWL specified in figure 1 to paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
(2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD: After accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (g)(2), (h)(2), and (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable, on all airplanes in an operator's fleet, and within 8 years after the effective date of the AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the AWL specified in figure 2 to paragraph (j)(2) of this AD.
(3) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD: After accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (g)(2), (h)(3), and (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable, on all airplanes in an operator's fleet, and within 8 years after the effective date of the AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the AWL specified in figure 3 to paragraph (j)(3) of this AD.
(4) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, excluding Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes: Within 30 days since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the AWL specified in figure 4 to paragraph (j)(4) of this AD.
(1) After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative actions (
(2) After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative actions (
(1) For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may replace an MOV actuator having P/N MA30A1017 (Boeing P/N S343T003-76) with an MOV actuator having P/N MA20A2027 or P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56 or Boeing P/N S343T003-66, respectively) for the left engine and right engine fuel shutoff valves.
(2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may replace an MOV actuator having P/N AV-31-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-111), P/N MA11A1265 (Boeing P/N S343T003-14), P/N MA11A1265-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-41), or P/N MA30A1017 (Boeing P/N S343T003-76) with an MOV actuator having P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-66) or P/N MA20A2027 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56) for the left engine and right engine fuel shutoff valves and the APU fuel shutoff valve.
(3) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may replace an MOV actuator having P/N AV-31-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-111), P/N MA11A1265 (Boeing P/N S343T003-14), P/N MA11A1265-1 (Boeing P/N S343T003-41), or P/N MA30A1017 (Boeing P/N S343T003-76) with an MOV actuator having P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-66) or P/N MA20A2027 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56) for the left engine and right engine fuel shutoff valves and the APU fuel shutoff valve.
(4) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, excluding Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series
(1) For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes: Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (j)(l) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (l)(1) of this AD and all requirements of AD 2015-21-10.
(2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD: Accomplishing the action required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (l)(2) of this AD and all requirements of AD 2015-19-04.
(3) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD: Accomplishing the action required by paragraph (j)(3) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (l)(3) of this AD and all requirements of AD 2015-21-09.
(4) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, excluding Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes: Accomplishing the action required by paragraph (j)(4) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (l)(4) of this AD.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) or (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-28-0138, dated May 18, 2016.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) or (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28-0115, dated September 10, 2015.
(3) For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before the effective date of this AD, this paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D626A001-9-04, Revision July 2016, Revision September 2016, Revision January 2017, Revision April 2018, or Revision May 2018; or Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D626A001-CMR, Revision October 2014, Revision November 2014, Revision January 2015, or Revision April 2016.
(4) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD, this paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622N001-9, Revision January 2016, Revision July 2016, or Revision February 2017.
(5) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before the effective date of this AD, this paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing 767 Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D622T001-9-04, Revision July 2015, Revision March 2016, Revision May 2016, Revision May 2016 R1, or Revision June 2016; or Boeing 767-200/300/300F/400 Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D622T001-9-04, Revision January 2018.
(6) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before the effective date of this AD, this paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (i)(3)(ii) of this AD if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing 767 Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D622T001-9-04, Revision October 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 (p)(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 Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (o)(4)(i) and (o)(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 Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3553; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (q)(3) and (q)(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 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D626A001-9-04, Revision June 2018.
(ii) Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622N001-9, Revision May 2018.
(iii) Boeing 767-200/300/300F/400ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D622T001-9-04, Revision March 2018.
(iv) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28-1314, dated November 17, 2014.
(v) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28-0115, Revision 1, dated June 2, 2016.
(vi) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-28-0138, Revision 1, dated June 19, 2017.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, 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:
(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 all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. This AD was prompted by an inspection on the production line that revealed evidence of paint peeling on the forward and aft cargo frame forks around the hook bolt hole. This AD requires a detailed visual inspection for any deficiency of the frame forks around the hook bolt hole on certain forward and aft cargo doors and applicable corrective actions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 15, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 15, 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
Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address paint peeling on the forward and aft cargo doors that could develop into galvanic corrosion, which could lead to cargo door failure and possibly result in decompression of the airplane and injury to occupants.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0031, dated January 31, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Following an inspection on the production line, paint peeling was found on forward and aft cargo door frame forks around the hook bolt hole. Subsequent investigations determined this had been caused by incorrect masking method during application of primer, top coat and Tartaric Sulfuric Anodizing (TSA) layer. As the cargo doors are located in an area with high corrosion sensitivity, where a surface protection with primer, top coat and TSA is specified, in case of paint peeling off, galvanic corrosion could develop.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to cargo door failure, possibly resulting in decompression of the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus identified the affected parts and issued the SB [Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A350-52-P011, dated May 12, 2017] to provide inspection instructions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time detailed [visual] inspection (DET) of the affected parts [for discrepancies] and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s) [
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 have changed paragraph (g)(2) in this AD by adding that a serviceable part is also “a part identified as an affected part, and the actions in paragraph (i) of this AD have been accomplished on that part.” This change has been coordinated with EASA and Airbus.
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.
Airbus SAS has issued Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P011, dated May 12, 2017. This service information describes procedures for a one-time detailed visual inspection of the frame forks around the hook bolt hole on the forward and aft cargo door, and applicable corrective actions. This service information is reasonably
We estimate that this AD affects 9 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action:
According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to 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 November 15, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by an inspection on the production line that revealed evidence of paint peeling on the forward and aft cargo frame forks around the hook bolt hole. We are issuing this AD to address paint peeling on the forward and aft cargo doors that could develop into galvanic corrosion, which could lead to cargo door failure and possibly result in decompression of the airplane and injury to occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For the purpose of this AD, the affected parts are forward cargo doors, part number (P/N) WG102AGAAAAF and P/N WG102AKAAAAF, serial number (S/N) UH10007 through UH10022 inclusive, except S/N UH10009; and aft cargo doors P/N
(2) For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable forward cargo door or a serviceable aft cargo door is a part that is not identified as an affected part, or is a part identified as an affected part on which a detailed visual inspection specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P011, dated May 12, 2017, has been done and there were no findings, or is a part identified as an affected part, and the actions in paragraph (i) of this AD have been accomplished on that part.
Within 36 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, accomplish a detailed visual inspection of each affected part for any deficiency (
If, during any detailed visual inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, any deficiency is found, before next flight, restore the anti-corrosion protection of frame forks of the affected part, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P011, dated May 12, 2017, except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD.
Where Airbus Service Bulletin A350-52-P011, dated May 12, 2017, specifies contacting Airbus, and specifies that action as RC: This AD requires repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD.
From the effective date of this AD, it is allowed to install on an airplane a forward cargo door or an aft cargo door, provided the part is a serviceable forward cargo door or serviceable aft cargo door as defined in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0031, dated January 31, 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 Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218.
(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 A350-52-P011, dated May 12, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(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), DOT.
Final rule, technical amendment.
This action incorporates this amendment into FAA Order 7400.11C for a final rule published in the
Effective date: 0901 UTC, October 11, 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 7400.11C, 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.
Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
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 the 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 makes the necessary updates for airspace areas within the National Airspace System.
The FAA published a final rule in the
Class B airspace designations are published in paragraph 3000 and Class C airspace designations are published in paragraph 4000 of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class B and Class C airspace designations listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by incorporating this amendment into FAA Order 7400.11C for a final rule published in the
Accordingly, as this is an administrative correction to update the final rule amendment into FAA Order 7400.11C, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. Also, to bring this rule and legal description current, I find that good cause exists, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
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. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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.
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.
For Docket No. FAA-2018-0632; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWA-4 (83 FR 40662, August 16, 2018). On page 40662, column 3, line 59, and page 40663, column 1, line 10, under
On page 40663, column 1, line 66, under History remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018 . . .”.
On page 40663, column 2, line 12, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 40664, column 1, line 22, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, . . .”.
Office of Investment Security, Department of the Treasury.
Interim rule.
This interim rule sets forth amendments to the regulations in part 800 of 31 CFR that implement, and make updates consistent with, certain provisions of the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA). Among other things, this interim rule implements certain provisions of FIRRMA that became immediately effective upon its enactment and provides clarity as to the current process and procedures with respect to the reviews and investigations undertaken by the Committee on
Written comments on the interim rule may be submitted through one of two methods:
•
•
In general, Treasury will post all comments to
For questions about this interim rule, contact: Thomas Feddo, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Investment Security; Laura Black, Director of Investment Security Policy and International Relations; Meena Sharma, Senior Policy Advisor; or Juliana Gabrovsky, Policy Advisor, at U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20220, telephone: (202) 622-3425, email:
On August 13, 2018, President Trump signed into law the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA), Subtitle A of Title XVII of Pub. L. 115-232 (Aug. 13, 2018), which amends section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA). Pursuant to section 1727 of FIRRMA, a number of provisions of FIRRMA took effect immediately upon enactment of the statute, while the effectiveness of other provisions is delayed. A number of the immediately effective provisions of FIRRMA required revisions to certain provisions of part 800. This interim rule amends part 800 to make such revisions and makes several other updates consistent with FIRRMA.
This interim rule is intended to provide clarity regarding the processes and procedures of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS, or the Committee) pending the full implementation of FIRRMA.
The interim rule set forth in this document implements certain immediately effective provisions of, and makes updates consistent with, FIRRMA. Section 709(a) of the DPA (50 U.S.C. 4559(a)) provides that regulations issued under the DPA are not subject to the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Moreover, to the extent that the rulemaking requirements of the APA were determined to apply to this interim rule, the provisions of the APA requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date (5 U.S.C. 553), as well as the provisions of Executive Order 13771, are inapplicable because this interim rule involves a foreign affairs function of the United States. By its terms, this interim rule regulates the conduct of foreign persons seeking to acquire certain interests in particular U.S. businesses, precisely because the acquisition of such interests could harm the strategic national security interests of the United States vis-à-vis other nations.
Notwithstanding that the rulemaking requirements of the APA do not apply to this interim rule, section 709(b)(1) of the DPA provides that, except as otherwise provided in section 709, any regulation issued under the DPA must be published in the
Section 709(b)(2) of the DPA (50 U.S.C. 4559(b)(2)), however, provides that the requirements of section 709(b)(1) may be waived if: (1) The officer authorized to issue the regulation finds that urgent and compelling circumstances make compliance with such requirements impracticable; (2) the regulation is issued on a temporary basis
The regulatory amendments set forth in this document meet the three requirements of section 709(b)(2) of the DPA for the reasons below, and therefore qualify for waiver of the public comment requirement of section 709(b)(1) of the DPA.
First, as required by section 709(b)(2)(A) of the DPA, and for the reasons described in part III, below, upon the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Markets finds, and the Committee agrees, that urgent and compelling circumstances make completion of the process for public participation in rulemaking set forth in section 709 of the DPA impracticable prior to the effectiveness of this interim rule.
Second, this interim rule is limited in duration as the amendments addressed in this rule will be further addressed in the final rule implementing FIRRMA, which is forthcoming and will supersede this interim rule. Thus, these amendments are being issued on a temporary basis pending the full implementation of FIRRMA.
Third, consistent with the requirement of section 709(b)(2)(C) of the DPA, if the Committee intends to make the provisions of this interim rule final, CFIUS will complete the process for public participation in rulemaking set forth in section 709 of the DPA in conjunction with the issuance of a final rule.
Upon enactment of FIRRMA, certain of the Committee's regulations in part 800 were rendered inconsistent with section 721. These inconsistencies could lead to ambiguity regarding the procedural aspects of the national security reviews and investigations undertaken by the Committee. Given that parties involved in cross-border transactions regularly include CFIUS among the regulatory regimes that are assessed in transaction negotiations and planning, urgent and compelling circumstances exist that require immediate and clear guidance. One of the factors that makes the United States
As a result, the Committee is providing an immediate opportunity for public comment on this interim rule and will consider and address such comments in the process of promulgating any final rule, consistent with section 709(b)(3) of the DPA. This approach appropriately balances the urgency of the interim rule with the need for public participation in the formulation of any final rule.
This interim rule makes amendments to the regulations at part 800 that are largely technical in nature. It implements certain immediately effective provisions of, and makes updates consistent with, FIRRMA. The discussion below summarizes the key changes made by this interim rule.
These regulations are not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12866 because they relate to a foreign affairs function of the United States.
The collection of information contained in this rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This interim rule implements section 721 of the DPA. Section 709(a) of the DPA provides that the regulations issued under it are not subject to the rulemaking requirements of the APA. Section 709(b)(1) instead provides that any regulation issued under the DPA be published in the
Foreign investments in the United States, Investigations, National defense, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 31, Subtitle B, Chapter VIII, Part 800 is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. 4565; E.O. 11858, as amended, 73 FR 4677.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and otherwise in this part, the regulations in this part apply from the effective date.
(c) The amendments to this part published in the
The term
The term
(a) Defense articles or defense services included on the United States Munitions List set forth in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR parts 120-130).
(b) Items included on the Commerce Control List set forth in Supplement No. 1 to part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR parts 730-774), and controlled—
(1) Pursuant to multilateral regimes, including for reasons relating to national security, chemical and biological weapons proliferation, nuclear nonproliferation, or missile technology; or
(2) For reasons relating to regional stability or surreptitious listening.
(c) Specially designed and prepared nuclear equipment, parts and components, materials, software, and technology covered by 10 CFR part 810 (relating to assistance to foreign atomic energy activities).
(d) Nuclear facilities, equipment, and material covered by 10 CFR part 110 (relating to export and import of nuclear equipment and material).
(e) Select agents and toxins covered by 7 CFR part 331, 9 CFR part 121, or 42 CFR part 73.
(f) Emerging and foundational technologies controlled pursuant to section 1758 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018.
The additions read as follows:
(f) In the case of a change in rights that a person has with respect to an entity in which that person has an investment, the person whose rights change as a result of the transaction and the entity to which those rights apply;
(g) In the case of a transfer, agreement, arrangement, or any other type of transaction, the structure of which is designed or intended to evade or circumvent the application of section 721, any person that participates in such transfer, agreement, arrangement, or other type of transaction; and”; and
The term
(a) A proposed or completed merger, acquisition, or takeover, including without limitation:
(1) The acquisition of an ownership interest in an entity;
(2) The acquisition or conversion of convertible voting instruments of an entity;
(3) The acquisition of proxies from holders of a voting interest in an entity;
(4) A merger or consolidation;
(5) The formation of a joint venture; and
(6) A long-term lease under which a lessee makes substantially all business decisions concerning the operation of a leased entity, as if it were the owner;
(b) Any change in rights that a person has with respect to an entity in which that person has an investment; and
(c) Any other transaction, transfer, agreement, or arrangement, the structure of which is designed or intended to evade or circumvent the application of section 721.
Corporation A, a foreign person, signs a concession agreement to operate the toll road business of Corporation B, a U.S. business, for 99 years. Corporation B, however, is required under the agreement to perform safety and security functions with respect to the business and to monitor compliance by Corporation A with the operating requirements of the agreement on an ongoing basis. Corporation B may terminate the agreement or impose other penalties for breach of these operating requirements. Assuming no other relevant facts, this is not a transaction.
See § 800.304 regarding factors the Committee will consider in determining whether to include the rights to be acquired by a foreign person upon the conversion of convertible voting instruments as part of the Committee's assessment of whether a transaction that involves such instruments is a covered transaction.
(e) A change in the rights that a foreign person has with respect to a U.S. business in which the foreign person has an investment, if that change could result in foreign control of the U.S. business.
Corporation A, a foreign person, holds a 10 percent ownership interest in Corporation X, a U.S. business. Corporation A and Corporation X enter into a contractual arrangement pursuant to which Corporation A will provide consulting and other advisory services to Corporation X in exchange for the right to appoint the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Technical Officer of Corporation X. Corporation A does not acquire any additional ownership interest in Corporation X pursuant to the contractual arrangement. The transaction is a covered transaction.
(f) A transaction the structure of which is designed to evade or circumvent the application of section 721.
Corporation A is organized under the laws of a foreign state and is wholly owned and controlled by a foreign national. With a view towards circumventing section 721, Corporation A transfers money to a U.S. citizen, who, pursuant to informal arrangements with Corporation A and on its behalf, purchases all the shares in Corporation X, a U.S. business. The transaction is a covered transaction.
(f) A change in the rights that a foreign person has with respect to a U.S. business in which that foreign person has an investment, if that change could not result in foreign control of the U.S. business.
Corporation A, a foreign person, holds a 10 percent ownership interest in Corporation X, a U.S. business. Corporation A and Corporation X enter into a contractual arrangement pursuant to which Corporation A gains the right to purchase an additional interest in Corporation X to prevent the dilution of Corporation A's
(a) A party or parties to a proposed or completed transaction may file a voluntary notice of the transaction with the Committee. Voluntary notice to the Committee is filed by sending one electronic copy of the notice that includes, in English, the information set out in § 800.402, including the certification required under paragraph (l) of that section. See the Committee's section of the Department of the Treasury website, currently available at
(e) Upon receipt of the electronic copy of a notice filed under paragraph (a) of this section, including the certification required by § 800.402(l), the Staff Chairperson shall promptly inspect such notice for completeness.
The additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(x) A copy of any partnership agreements, integration agreements, or other side agreements relating to the transaction.”;
(n) A party filing a voluntary notice may stipulate that the transaction is a covered transaction and, if the party stipulates that the transaction is a covered transaction, that the transaction is a foreign government-controlled transaction. A stipulation offered by any party pursuant to this section must be accompanied by a description of the basis for the stipulation. The required description of the basis shall include, but is not limited to, discussion of all relevant information responsive to paragraphs (c)(6)(iv) through (c)(6)(vi) of this section. A party that offers such a stipulation acknowledges that the Committee and the President are entitled to rely on such stipulation in determining whether the transaction is a covered transaction and/or a foreign government-controlled transaction for the purposes of section 721 and all authorities thereunder, and waives the right to challenge any such determination. Neither the Committee nor the President is bound by any such stipulation, nor does any such stipulation limit the ability of the Committee or the President to act on any authority provided under section 721 with respect to any covered transaction.
The addition reads as follows:
(a) In any review or investigation of a covered transaction, the Committee should consider the factors specified in section 721(f) and, as appropriate, require parties to provide to the Committee the information necessary to consider such factors. * * *
(b) A 45-day period for review of a transaction shall commence on the date on which the voluntary notice has been accepted, agency notice has been received by the Staff Chairperson of the Committee, or the Chairperson of the Committee has requested a review pursuant to § 800.401(b). Such review shall end no later than the forty-fifth day after it has commenced, or if the forty-fifth day is not a business day, no later than the next business day after the forty-fifth day.
(e) In extraordinary circumstances, the Chairperson may, upon a written request signed by the head of a lead agency, extend an investigation for one 15-day period. A request to extend an investigation must describe, with particularity, the extraordinary circumstances that warrant the Chairperson extending the investigation. The authority of the head of a lead agency to request the extension of an investigation may not be delegated to any person other than the deputy head (or equivalent thereof) of the lead agency. If the Chairperson extends an investigation pursuant to this paragraph (e) with respect to a covered transaction, the Committee shall promptly notify the parties to the transaction of the extension.
(f) For purposes of paragraph (e) of this section, “extraordinary circumstances” means circumstances for which extending an investigation is necessary and the appropriate course of action due to a force majeure event or to protect the national security of the United States.”
Any deadline or time limitation under this subpart E shall be tolled during a lapse in appropriations.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, any information or documentary material filed with the Committee pursuant to this part, including information or documentary material filed pursuant to § 800.401(f), shall be exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552, and no such information or documentary material may be made public.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section shall not prohibit disclosure of the following:
(1) Information relevant to any administrative or judicial action or proceeding;
(2) Information to Congress or to any duly authorized committee or subcommittee of Congress;
(3) Information important to the national security analysis or actions of the Committee to any domestic governmental entity, or to any foreign governmental entity of a United States ally or partner, under the exclusive direction and authorization of the Chairperson, only to the extent necessary for national security purposes, and subject to appropriate confidentiality and classification requirements; or
(4) Information that the parties have consented to be disclosed to third parties.”; and
The revision and addition read as follows:
(b) Any person who, after the effective date, violates, intentionally or through gross negligence, a material provision of a mitigation agreement entered into before October 11, 2018, with, a material condition imposed before October 11, 2018 by, or an order issued before October 11, 2018 by, the United States under section 721(l) may be liable to the United States for a civil penalty not to exceed $250,000 per violation or the value of the transaction, whichever is greater. Any person who violates a material provision of a mitigation agreement entered into on or after October 11, 2018, with, a material condition imposed on or after October 11, 2018, by, or an order issued on or after October 11, 2018, by, the United States under section 721(l) may be liable to the United States for a civil penalty not to exceed $250,000 per violation or the value of the transaction, whichever is greater.”;
(g) Section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, shall apply to all information provided to the Committee under section 721 by any party to a covered transaction.
If, at any time after a mitigation agreement or condition is entered into or imposed under section 721(l), the Committee or lead agency, as the case may be, determines that a party or parties to the agreement or condition are not in compliance with the terms of the agreement or condition, the Committee or lead agency may, in addition to the authority of the Committee to impose penalties pursuant to section 721(h) and to unilaterally initiate a review of any covered transaction pursuant to section 721(b)(1)(D)(iii):
(a) Negotiate a plan of action for the party or parties to remediate the lack of compliance, with failure to abide by the plan or otherwise remediate the lack of compliance serving as the basis for the Committee to find a material breach of the agreement or condition;
(b) Require that the party or parties submit a written notice under clause (i) of section 721(b)(1)(C) with respect to a covered transaction initiated after the date of the determination of noncompliance and before the date that is five years after the date of the determination to the Committee to initiate a review of the transaction under section 721(b); or
(c) Seek injunctive relief.
Office of Investment Security, Department of the Treasury.
Interim rule.
This interim rule sets forth the scope of, and procedures for, a pilot program of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS, or the Committee) under section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA). Pursuant to section 1727(c) of FIRRMA, this pilot program implements the authorities provided in two sections of FIRRMA that did not take effect upon the statute's enactment. First, the pilot program expands the scope of transactions subject to review by CFIUS to include certain investments involving foreign persons and critical technologies. Second, the pilot program makes effective FIRRMA's mandatory declarations provision for all transactions that fall within the specific scope of the pilot program. The pilot program is temporary and will end no later than March 5, 2020.
Written comments on the interim rule may be submitted through one of two methods:
•
•
In general, Treasury will post all comments to
For questions about this interim rule, contact: Thomas Feddo, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Investment Security; Laura Black, Director of Investment Security Policy and International Relations; Meena Sharma, Senior Policy Advisor; or Juliana Gabrovsky, Policy Advisor, at U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220; telephone: (202) 622-3425; email:
The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA), Subtitle A of Title XVII of Public Law 115-232 (Aug. 13, 2018), amended section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA). Prior to the enactment of FIRRMA, section 721 of the DPA (section 721) authorized the President, acting through the Committee, to review mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers by or with any foreign person which could result in foreign control of any person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States, to determine the effects of such transactions on the national security of the United States. FIRRMA modified and broadened the authorities of the President and CFIUS under section 721 in several ways including, without limitation, by expanding the scope of
Section 1727(a) of FIRRMA made certain provisions of FIRRMA effective immediately upon enactment on August 13, 2018. Section 1727(b) of FIRRMA, however, delayed the effectiveness of any provision of FIRRMA not specified in section 1727(a) until the earlier of: (1) The date that is 18 months after the date of enactment of FIRRMA (
Notwithstanding section 1727(b), section 1727(c) of FIRRMA authorizes CFIUS to conduct one or more pilot programs to implement any authority provided pursuant to any provision of, or amendment made by, FIRRMA that did not take effect immediately upon enactment. Section 1727(c) states that a pilot program may not commence until the date that is 30 days after publication in the
The interim rule set forth in this document implements a pilot program, pursuant to section 721, relating to foreign investment into certain U.S. businesses that produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop one or more critical technologies. Section 709(a) of the DPA (50 U.S.C. 4559(a)) provides that regulations issued under the DPA are not subject to the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Moreover, to the extent that the rulemaking requirements of the APA were determined to apply to this interim rule, the provisions of the APA requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date (5 U.S.C. 553), as well as the provisions of Executive Order 13771, are inapplicable because this interim rule involves a foreign affairs function of the United States. By its terms, the pilot program to be implemented pursuant to this interim rule regulates the conduct of foreign persons seeking to acquire certain interests in particular U.S. businesses, precisely because the acquisition of such interests could harm the strategic national security interests of the United States vis-à-vis other nations.
Notwithstanding that the rulemaking requirements of the APA do not apply to this interim rule, Section 709(b)(1) of the DPA provides that, except as otherwise provided in section 709, any regulation issued under the DPA must be published in the
Section 709(b)(2) of the DPA (50 U.S.C. 4559(b)(2)), however, provides that the requirements of section 709(b)(1) may be waived if: (1) The officer authorized to issue the regulation finds that urgent and compelling circumstances make compliance with such requirements impracticable; (2) the regulation is issued on a temporary basis
The regulations set forth in this document meet the three requirements of section 709(b)(2) of the DPA for the reasons below, and therefore qualify for waiver of the public comment requirement of section 709(b)(1) of the DPA.
First, as required by section 709(b)(2)(A) of the DPA, and for the reasons described in part III, below, the Secretary of the Treasury finds, and the Committee agrees, that urgent and compelling circumstances make completion of the process for public participation in rulemaking set forth in section 709 of the DPA impracticable prior to the effectiveness of this interim rule.
Second, pursuant to section 1727(c)(1) of FIRRMA, the authority for a pilot program is time limited to no more than 570 days following the date of FIRRMA's enactment, making any FIRRMA pilot program inherently temporary. Consistent with that limitation and the requirement of section 709(b)(2)(B) of the DPA, these regulations are issued on a temporary basis. Section 801.101 sets forth the duration of the pilot program regulations.
Third, consistent with the requirement of section 709(b)(2)(C) of the DPA, if the Committee intends to make the provisions of this interim rule final, CFIUS will complete the process for public participation in rulemaking set forth in section 709 of the DPA in conjunction with the issuance of a final rule.
Given the pilot program's scope and objectives, considering and responding to public comments prior to the effectiveness of this interim rule would be inconsistent with U.S. foreign affairs interests because it would delay the effective date of the pilot program, which could provide threat actors with time to harm U.S. national security by quickly acquiring U.S. critical technologies, contrary to the urgent and compelling circumstances justifying this program, as discussed below.
As a result, the Committee is providing an immediate opportunity for public comment on this interim rule and will consider and address such comments in the process of promulgating any final rule, consistent with section 709(b)(3) of the DPA. This approach appropriately balances the urgency of the pilot program with the need for public participation in the formulation of any final rule.
The passage of FIRRMA was based upon concerns that, as noted at section 1702(b)(4) of FIRRMA, “the national security landscape has shifted in recent years, and so has the nature of the investments that pose the greatest potential risk to national security. . . .” FIRRMA provides CFIUS time to develop the resources and regulations necessary to administer all of FIRRMA's provisions before the statute becomes fully effective. Notwithstanding this, FIRRMA also provides the authority for pilot programs and, in doing so, recognizes the need to immediately assess and address significant risks to national security posed by some foreign investments.
In order to be effective in identifying and addressing these national security risks, FIRRMA recognizes that there may be circumstances in which the Committee deems it appropriate to require mandatory declarations for specific types of transactions. This pilot program establishes mandatory declarations for certain transactions involving investments by foreign persons in certain U.S. businesses that produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop one or more critical technologies. The purpose of the pilot program is to assess and address
Technological superiority has long underpinned the United States' military strategy and national security innovation base. The Administration supports protecting our national security from emerging risks while maintaining an open investment policy. Although the vast majority of foreign direct investment in the United States provides economic benefits to our nation—including the promotion of economic growth, productivity, competitiveness, and job creation—some foreign direct investment threatens to undermine the technological superiority that is critical to U.S. national security. Specifically, the threat to critical technology industries is more significant than ever as some foreign parties seek, through various means, to acquire sensitive technologies with relevance for U.S. national security. Foreign investment in U.S. critical technologies has grown significantly in the past decade, and an enhanced framework is needed to address the potential impacts of this growth on U.S. national security.
Prior to FIRRMA, CFIUS's authorities did not sufficiently address the new and emerging risks that foreign direct investment can pose to U.S. technological superiority. For example, foreign investors do not need to acquire a controlling interest in order to affect certain decisions made by, or obtain certain information from, a U.S. business with respect to the use, development, acquisition, or release of critical technology. CFIUS's authorities, however, only applied to transactions that could result in foreign control of a U.S. business. Consequently, CFIUS had no authority to prevent a foreign entity from acquiring a non-controlling interest in a U.S. business that produces, designs, tests, manufactures, fabricates, or develops one or more critical technologies. FIRRMA provides CFIUS new authorities to address the national security concerns that may arise from these investments, but those authorities were not immediately effective upon FIRRMA's enactment.
Together, the pace of technological change in certain critical technology industries, the significant growth in foreign investment in certain industries relevant to national security, and the current inability of CFIUS to examine certain non-controlling transactions creates urgent and compelling circumstances for the pilot program that make completion of the process for public participation in rulemaking set forth in section 709 of the DPA impracticable prior to the effectiveness of this interim rule. Implementing the pilot program expeditiously is necessary both to protect critical technologies and to evaluate how best to implement certain aspects of FIRRMA in the long-term. The temporary nature of the pilot program and the short timeframe within which to gather data to help inform the full implementation of FIRRMA compel a rapid implementation of this interim rule. Delaying effectiveness of the interim rule would create an unacceptable risk of erosion of U.S. technological superiority. Without immediate action, foreign parties will be able to influence the use of, and decisions made by U.S. businesses with respect to, critical technologies through the types of investments FIRRMA is intended to address. The list of pilot program industries identified in Annex A has been carefully developed by the U.S. government to narrowly scope the pilot program to include only those industries in which the threat of erosion of technological superiority from some foreign direct investment requires immediate action. As noted above, the Committee invites comments on this interim rule, will consider any comments received, and if the Committee intends to make the provisions of this interim rule final, will include in any final rule responses to such comments.
Notwithstanding the issuance of this interim rule, the regulations at part 800 remain in effect.
The interim rule builds upon existing rules governing CFIUS's review of transactions for national security considerations and adds a pilot program with two purposes. First, the pilot program expands the scope of transactions subject to review by CFIUS to include transactions subject to a portion of FIRRMA's “other investments” provision. Second, the pilot program makes effective FIRRMA's mandatory declarations provision for transactions that fall within the specific scope of the pilot program. The scope, procedures, and terms used in the pilot program are specific to the pilot program and subject to change in the proposed final rule implementing FIRRMA. The following discussion provides an overview of each subpart of the interim rule.
Subpart A sets forth the scope of the pilot program, its applicability based on the timing of certain events relating to a transaction, and the effect of the pilot program on other laws. FIRRMA authorizes the Committee to conduct one or more pilot programs to implement any authority provided pursuant to any provision of, or amendment made by, FIRRMA that did not take effect on the date of its enactment. This pilot program expands the scope of transactions subject to review by CFIUS to include certain investments by foreign persons in certain U.S. businesses that produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop one or more critical technologies. The pilot program also requires the submission of declarations with basic information regarding certain covered transactions, unless the parties elect to file a notice instead. The purpose of implementing a pilot program addressing these areas is to confront the rapid changes in certain critical technology industries, the significant growth of certain types of foreign investment in those industries, and the current inability of CFIUS to review non-controlling transactions, which creates an unacceptable risk of undermining U.S. technological superiority in industries with national security implications. The regulations in this interim rule supplement existing regulations implementing section 721 of the DPA, which remain in effect. Consistent with section 1727(c)(1) of FIRRMA, the pilot program implemented through these regulations
As set forth in section 801.103(b), these regulations do not apply to transactions for which the completion date is prior to the pilot program effective date, or transactions for which the parties have executed a binding written agreement or other document establishing the material terms of the transaction prior to October 11, 2018.
Consistent with CFIUS's existing regulations under part 800, the pilot program does not affect or limit other authorities of the government.
Subpart B sets forth defined terms used in the remainder of the pilot program regulations. The following discussion describes several key terms from subpart B.
Section
Subpart C describes the coverage of the pilot program with a focus on pilot program covered investments. The analysis as to whether a transaction could result in control of a pilot program U.S. business by a foreign person generally follows the same analysis as under part 800, with the additional requirement that the U.S. business in question must be a pilot program U.S. business. The examples provided throughout subpart C are intended to illustrate the application of the definitions to the particular hypothetical situations. The examples are presented for the purpose of aiding the understanding of readers. They neither limit the definitions set forth in subpart B nor exhaust the scenarios to which such definitions could apply.
Subpart C illustrates that, where CFIUS has concluded all action under section 721 for a pilot program covered investment (regardless of whether the notification was made through a declaration or a notice), any incremental investment that meets the requirements of section 801.209, even if involving the same foreign person in the same pilot program U.S. business, will nevertheless be a pilot program covered investment and subject to this pilot program.
Subpart C also implements portions of section 1703 of FIRRMA that limit the application of CFIUS authority over certain types of investment fund investments and provides an explicit exception for investments involving air carriers.
Subpart D requires that the parties to a pilot program covered transaction submit to the Committee a declaration regarding the transaction, unless the parties elect to submit a written notice pursuant to subpart E instead. Generally, mandatory declarations must be made at least 45 days before the expected completion date of the transaction. As noted in section 801.401(d), the regulatory safe harbor described in section 800.204(e) is not available for pilot program covered transactions for which the Committee completes all action under section 721 on the basis of a declaration, irrespective of whether the transaction could result in foreign control of a U.S. business. Any subsequent or incremental acquisition that constitutes a pilot program covered transaction must be submitted to CFIUS through a notice or declaration. For the avoidance of doubt, transactions that could result in control of a pilot program U.S. business by a foreign person and that are filed as a written notice, and for which the Committee completes all action under section 721, would receive the benefit of the regulatory safe harbor described in section 800.204(e).
FIRRMA distinguishes declarations from notices in three primary respects: (1) The length of the submission; (2) the time for CFIUS's consideration of the submission; and (3) the Committee's options for disposition of the submission. The interim rule recognizes these distinctions in the manner described below.
First, section 801.403 sets forth the information required in a declaration, which is consistent with FIRRMA's requirement that CFIUS establish declarations as “abbreviated notices that would not generally exceed 5 pages in length.” As part of the declaration process, parties will have the opportunity to voluntarily stipulate that the transaction is a pilot program covered transaction and, if so, whether the transaction could result in control of a pilot program U.S. business by a foreign person and whether the transaction is a foreign-government controlled transaction. Such stipulations would streamline certain aspects of CFIUS's review of a declaration, thereby reducing the burden on CFIUS and potentially
Second, consistent with FIRRMA, section 801.404 requires that the Committee take action on a declaration within 30 days of the Committee's receipt of the declaration from the Staff Chairperson. The Staff Chairperson will circulate the declaration to the Committee after inspecting the declaration and determining it to be complete. This implements FIRRMA's distinction that CFIUS complete review of a notice within 45 days and take action upon a declaration within 30 days.
Finally, section 801.407 implements FIRRMA's mandate that the Committee take one of four actions with respect to a declaration: (1) Request that the parties file a notice; (2) inform the parties that CFIUS cannot complete action under section 721 on the basis of the declaration, and that they may file a notice to seek written notification from the Committee that the Committee has completed all action under section 721 with respect to the transaction; (3) initiate a unilateral review of the transaction through an agency notice; or (4) notify the parties that CFIUS has completed all action under section 721.
Section 801.407 also makes clear that parties may not submit more than one declaration for the same or a substantially similar transaction without approval from the Staff Chairperson. The purpose of this is to avoid situations where, due to the abbreviated information requests, a party or parties file a declaration even before the material terms of a transaction have been agreed upon, subsequently complete their negotiations, and attempt to withdraw and resubmit a new declaration for the same or a substantially similar transaction.
The distinctions between notices and declarations outlined here—that is, the complexity of the submission and the parties' desired timing—underpin the primary interrelated factors that parties should consider when determining whether a pilot program covered transaction is best notified to the Committee through a declaration or a notice.
As noted above, the scope, procedures, and certain terms used in the pilot program are specific to the pilot program and subject to change in the proposed final rule implementing FIRRMA.
Subpart E generally applies the existing CFIUS procedural regulations in part 800 to notices of pilot program covered transactions. This subpart recognizes that parties, at their discretion, may elect to file a notice for a pilot program covered transaction instead of a declaration. The purpose of the subpart is to clarify that, where parties elect to file a notice instead of a declaration, or file a notice for a pilot program covered transaction following the Committee's action on a declaration, the procedural elements of CFIUS's existing regulations under part 800 generally will apply to that notice. Certain additional information will be required from the parties with respect to any pilot program covered investment notified to the Committee through a notice.
For the avoidance of doubt, while the pilot program implements certain provisions of FIRRMA that allow CFIUS to review certain non-controlling transactions involving critical technology in specified industries, it does not change CFIUS's analysis with respect to a transaction that could result in foreign control of a U.S. business under the regulations at part 800.
Additionally, a party (or parties) to a pilot program covered transaction that has filed a written notice pursuant to section 800.401(a) regarding the transaction may not submit to the Committee a declaration regarding the same transaction, or a substantially similar transaction, without the approval of the Staff Chairperson. The purpose of the declaration is to allow for an assessment of certain information relating to certain transactions that may not, because of the scope and other factors, necessitate the collection of all of the information set forth in section 800.402(c). As noted above, parties should consider whether the transaction is of the type that would be appropriate for a declaration, or whether it would be more appropriate to notify the Committee of the transaction by filing a written notice.
Subpart F implements authorities provided pursuant to, and amendments made by, FIRRMA.
These regulations are not subject to the general requirements of Executive Order 12866 because they relate to a foreign affairs function of the United States pursuant to section 3(d)(2) of that order.
The collection of information contained in this rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and assigned control number 1505-0121. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This interim rule implements section 721 of the DPA. Section 709(a) of the DPA provides that the regulations issued under it are not subject to the rulemaking requirements of the APA. Section 709(b)(1) instead provides that any regulation issued under the DPA be published in the
Foreign investments in the United States, Investigations, National defense, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
50 U.S.C. 4565; Pub. L. 115-232.
The regulations in this part implement a pilot program in accordance with section 1727(c) of the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018. Pursuant to section 1727(c), the pilot program implements authorities provided in certain provisions of, or amendments made by, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 that did not take effect on the date of its enactment. This pilot program expands the scope of transactions reviewable by CFIUS to include certain investments by foreign persons in certain U.S. businesses that produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop one or more critical technologies. The pilot program also requires that parties to a pilot program covered transaction notify CFIUS of the transaction by either submitting a declaration or filing a written notice. The regulations in this part supplement the existing regulations implementing section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, under part 800 to Title 31 CFR Chapter VIII, which remain in effect. The pilot program implemented through these regulations will end no later than the date on which the full regulations implementing the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 become effective, and in no event later than the date that is 570 days after the enactment of the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018. These regulations will be amended, replaced, or removed no later than the date on which the pilot program ends.
Unless otherwise indicated, nothing in this part shall be construed as altering or affecting any other authority, process, regulation, investigation, enforcement measure, or review provided by or established under any other provision of federal law, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706), or any other authority of the President or the Congress under the Constitution of the United States.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and otherwise in this part, the regulations in this part apply from the pilot program effective date.
(b) The regulations in this part do not apply to any transaction for which:
(1) The completion date is prior to the pilot program effective date; or
(2) The following has occurred before October 11, 2018:
(i) The parties to the transaction have executed a binding written agreement or other document establishing the material terms of the transaction;
(ii) A party has made a public offer to shareholders to buy shares of a pilot program U.S. business; or
(iii) A shareholder has solicited proxies in connection with an election of the board of directors of a pilot program U.S. business or has requested the conversion of convertible voting securities.
Unless otherwise indicated, terms used in the regulations in this part that are defined in §§ 800.201 through 800.228 of this chapter have the meanings set forth therein.
The term
The term
The term
(a) Defense articles or defense services included on the United States Munitions List set forth in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR parts 120-130).
(b) Items included on the Commerce Control List set forth in Supplement No. 1 to part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR parts 730-774) and controlled:
(1) Pursuant to multilateral regimes, including for reasons relating to national security, chemical and biological weapons proliferation, nuclear nonproliferation, or missile technology; or
(2) For reasons relating to regional stability or surreptitious listening.
(c) Specially designed and prepared nuclear equipment, parts and components, materials, software, and technology covered by 10 CFR part 810 (relating to assistance to foreign atomic energy activities).
(d) Nuclear facilities, equipment, and material covered by 10 CFR part 110 (relating to export and import of nuclear equipment and material).
(e) Select agents and toxins covered by 7 CFR part 331, 9 CFR part 121, or 42 CFR part 73.
(f) Emerging and foundational technologies controlled pursuant to section 1758 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018.
The term
The term
The term
(a) The term
(b) The term
The term
(a) Access to any material nonpublic technical information in the possession of the pilot program U.S. business;
(b) Membership or observer rights on the board of directors or equivalent governing body of the pilot program U.S. business or the right to nominate an individual to a position on the board of directors or equivalent governing body of the pilot program U.S. business; or
(c) Any involvement, other than through voting of shares, in substantive decisionmaking of the pilot program U.S. business regarding the use, development, acquisition, or release of critical technology.
The term
(a) Any pilot program covered investment; or
(b) Any transaction by or with any foreign person that could result in foreign control of any pilot program U.S. business, including such a transaction carried out through a joint venture.
The term
The term
The term
(a) Utilized in connection with the U.S. business's activity in one or more pilot program industries; or
(b) Designed by the U.S. business specifically for use in one or more pilot program industries.
The term
For the sole purpose of determining whether a transaction could result in control of a pilot program U.S. business by a foreign person, the provisions set forth in subpart C of this part (excluding § 800.302(b) of this chapter and the examples thereunder) regarding covered transactions shall apply to any pilot program covered transaction declared to the Committee pursuant to § 801.401 or notified to the Committee pursuant to § 801.501.
Transactions that are pilot program covered transactions include, without limitation:
(a) A transaction that meets the requirements of § 801.209, irrespective of the percentage of voting interest acquired.
Corporation A, a foreign person, proposes to acquire a four percent, non-controlling equity interest in Corporation B. Corporation B is a U.S. business that manufactures a critical technology as part of its business in a pilot program industry. Corporation B is therefore a pilot program U.S. business. Pursuant to the terms of the investment, a designee of Corporation A will have the right to observe the meetings of the board of directors of Corporation B. The proposed transaction is a pilot program covered investment and therefore a pilot program covered transaction.
Corporation A, a foreign person, proposes to acquire a four percent, non-controlling equity interest in Corporation B, a pilot program U.S. business as described above. Pursuant to the terms of the investment, Corporation A has approval rights with respect to Corporation B's licensing of a critical technology to third parties. Corporation A is therefore involved
(b) A transaction that meets the requirements of § 801.209, irrespective of the fact that the Committee concluded all action under section 721 for a previous pilot program covered investment by the same foreign person in the same pilot program U.S. business, where such transaction involves the acquisition of access or rights described by § 801.209 in addition to those notified to the Committee in the transaction for which the Committee previously concluded action.
The Committee concludes all action under section 721 with respect to a pilot program covered investment by Corporation A, a foreign person, in which Corporation A acquires a four percent, non-controlling equity interest with board observer rights in Corporation B, a pilot program U.S. business. One year later, Corporation A proposes to acquire an additional five percent equity interest in Corporation B, resulting in Corporation A holding a nine percent, non-controlling equity interest in Corporation B. Pursuant to the terms of the additional investment, Corporation A will be provided access to material nonpublic technical information in the possession of Corporation B to which Corporation A did not previously have access. The proposed transaction is a pilot program covered investment and therefore a pilot program covered transaction because the transaction involves both an acquisition of an equity interest in a pilot program U.S. business and a new right to access material nonpublic technical information.
(c) A transaction that meets the requirements of § 801.209, irrespective of the fact that the critical technology produced, designed, tested, manufactured, fabricated, or developed by the pilot program U.S. business became controlled pursuant to section 1758 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 after the pilot program effective date, unless any of the criteria set forth in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(iii) of § 801.103 is satisfied with respect to the transaction prior to the critical technology becoming controlled pursuant to section 1758 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018.
Corporation A, a foreign person, has executed a written agreement establishing the material terms of a proposed non-controlling investment in Corporation B, a pilot program U.S. business. The proposed investment will afford Corporation A access to material nonpublic technical information in the possession of Corporation B. The only controlled technology produced, designed, tested, manufactured, fabricated, or developed by Corporation B became controlled pursuant to section 1758 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 after the pilot program effective date but prior to the date upon which the written agreement establishing the material terms of the investment was executed. The proposed transaction is a pilot program covered investment and therefore a pilot program covered transaction.
(d) A transaction by or with any foreign person that could result in foreign control of any pilot program U.S. business.
Corporation A, a foreign person, acquires a 40 percent interest and the ability to determine important matters with respect to Corporation B, a U.S. pilot program business. The proposed transaction is a pilot program covered transaction.
Transactions that are not pilot program covered transactions include, without limitation:
(a) An investment by a foreign person in a U.S. business that manufactures a technology that it utilizes in connection with its activity in one or more pilot program industries, but does not produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop one or more critical technologies.
Corporation A, a foreign person, proposes to acquire a four percent, non-controlling equity interest in Corporation B, a U.S. business that operates in a pilot program industry. Pursuant to the terms of the investment, a designee of Corporation A will have the right to observe the meetings of the board of directors of Corporation B. Corporation B does not produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop any critical technology. Assuming no other relevant facts, the proposed transaction is not a pilot program covered transaction.
(b) An investment by a foreign person in a pilot program U.S. business that does not afford the foreign person any of the rights specified in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of § 801.209 or any control rights.
The Committee concluded all action under section 721 with respect to a pilot program covered transaction in which Corporation A, a foreign person, acquired a four percent, non-controlling equity interest with board observer rights in Corporation B, a pilot program U.S. business. One year later, Corporation A proposes to acquire an additional five percent equity interest in Corporation B, which would result in Corporation A holding a nine percent, non-controlling equity interest in Corporation B. The proposed investment does not afford Corporation A any additional rights with respect to Corporation B, including the rights specified in § 801.209. Assuming no other relevant facts, the proposed transaction is not a pilot program covered transaction.
(c) A transaction that results or could result in control by a foreign person of a U.S. business that is not a pilot program U.S. business.
Corporation A, a foreign person, proposes to purchase all of the shares of Corporation B, which is a U.S. business that operates in a pilot program industry but does not produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop any critical technology. As the sole owner, Corporation A will have the right to elect directors and appoint other primary officers of Corporation B. Assuming no other relevant facts, the proposed transaction is not a pilot program covered transaction. It is, however, a covered transaction (see § 800.301 of this chapter).
(a) An indirect investment by a foreign person in a pilot program U.S. business through an investment fund that affords the foreign person (or a designee of the foreign person) membership as a limited partner or equivalent on an advisory board or a committee of the fund shall not be considered a pilot program covered transaction with respect to the foreign person if:
(1) The fund is managed exclusively by a general partner, a managing member, or an equivalent;
(2) The foreign person is not the general partner, managing member, or equivalent;
(3) The advisory board or committee does not have the ability to approve, disapprove, or otherwise control:
(i) Investment decisions of the investment fund; or
(ii) Decisions made by the general partner, managing member, or equivalent related to entities in which the investment fund is invested;
(4) The foreign person does not otherwise have the ability to control the investment fund, including the authority:
(i) To approve, disapprove, or otherwise control investment decisions of the investment fund;
(ii) To approve, disapprove, or otherwise control decisions made by the general partner, managing member, or equivalent related to entities in which the investment fund is invested; or
(iii) To unilaterally dismiss, prevent the dismissal of, select, or determine the compensation of the general partner, managing member, or equivalent;
(5) The foreign person does not have access to material nonpublic technical information as a result of its participation on the advisory board or committee; and
(6) The investment otherwise meets the requirements of paragraph (4)(D) of subsection (a) of section 721 made effective by part 801.
(b) For the purposes of paragraphs (a)(3) and (4), and except as provided in
(c) In extraordinary circumstances, the Committee may consider the waiver of a potential conflict of interest, the waiver of an allocation limitation, or a similar activity, applicable to a transaction pursuant to the terms of an agreement governing an investment fund, to constitute control of investment decisions of the investment fund or decisions relating to entities in which the investment fund is invested.
Corporation A, a foreign person, makes an investment in an investment fund as a limited partner. The investment confers membership on an advisory board of the investment fund. The investment fund holds 100 percent of the ownership interests in a pilot program U.S. business. Corporation A will have the right to approve decisions made by the general partner with respect to the use and development of the critical technologies produced by the pilot program U.S. business. This transaction is a pilot program covered transaction.
Corporation A, a foreign person, makes an investment in an investment fund as a limited partner. The investment confers membership on an advisory board of the investment fund. The investment fund holds 100 percent of the ownership interests in a pilot program U.S. business. Corporation A is not the general partner that wholly manages the investment fund. Corporation A lacks any ability to control the investment fund or its decisions. As a member of the advisory board, Corporation A has the right to vote on the compensation of the general partner and the right to vote on the dismissal of the general partner for cause, but does not have the power to determine either of these matters unilaterally. Assuming no other relevant facts, this transaction is not a pilot program covered transaction with respect to Corporation A.
No investment involving an air carrier, as defined in section 40102(a)(2) of title 49, United States Code, that holds a certificate issued under section 41102 of that title shall be a pilot program covered transaction.
The provisions set forth in § 800.304 of this chapter regarding convertible voting instruments shall apply to contingent equity interests.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the parties to a pilot program covered transaction shall submit to the Committee a declaration with information regarding the transaction in accordance with § 801.402.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, parties to a pilot program covered transaction may elect to submit a written notice pursuant to subpart E of this part regarding the transaction instead of a declaration. Parties to a pilot program covered transaction that have filed with the Committee a written notice regarding a transaction pursuant to § 801.501 may not submit to the Committee a declaration regarding the same transaction or a substantially similar transaction without the approval of the Staff Chairperson.
(c) Parties shall submit to the Committee the declaration required pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, or a written notice pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, no later than:
(1) November 10, 2018, or promptly thereafter, if the completion date of the transaction is between November 10, 2018 and December 25, 2018; or
(2) 45 days before the completion date of the transaction, if the completion date of the transaction is after December 25, 2018.
(d) Section 800.204(e) of this chapter shall not apply with respect to any pilot program covered transaction for which the Committee completes all action under section 721 pursuant to § 801.407(a)(4).
(a) A party or parties shall submit a declaration of a pilot program covered transaction pursuant to § 801.401 by submitting electronically the information set out in § 801.403, including the certifications required thereunder, to the Staff Chairperson in accordance with the submission instructions on the Committee's section of the Department of the Treasury website at
(b) No communications other than those described in paragraph (a) of this section shall constitute the submission of a declaration for purposes of section 721.
(c) Information and other documentary material submitted to the Committee pursuant to this section shall be considered to have been filed with the President or the President's designee for purposes of section 721(c).
(d) Persons filing a declaration shall, during the time that the matter is pending before the Committee, promptly advise the Staff Chairperson of any material changes in plans, facts, or circumstances addressed in the declaration, and any material change in information required to be provided to the Committee under § 801.406(a)(3). Such changes shall become part of the declaration filed by such persons under § 801.401, and the certification required under § 801.405(c) shall apply to such changes.
(a) The party or parties submitting a declaration of a pilot program covered transaction pursuant to § 801.401 shall provide the information set out in this section, which must be accurate and complete with respect to all parties and to the transaction. (See also paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.)
(b) If fewer than all the parties to a transaction submit a declaration, the Committee may, at its discretion, request that the parties to the transaction file a written notice of the transaction under § 801.501, if the Staff Chairperson determines that the information provided by the submitting party or parties in the declaration is insufficient for the Committee to assess the transaction.
(c) Subject to paragraph (e) of this section, a declaration submitted pursuant to § 801.401 shall describe or provide, as applicable:
(1) The name of the foreign person(s) and pilot program U.S. business(es) that are parties to, or, in applicable cases, the subject of the transaction, as well as the name, telephone number, and email address of the primary point of contact for each party.
(2) The following information regarding the transaction in question, including:
(i) A brief description of the nature of the transaction and its structure (
(ii) The percentage of voting interest acquired;
(iii) The percentage of economic interest acquired;
(iv) Whether the pilot program U.S. business has multiple classes of ownership;
(v) The total transaction value in U.S. dollars;
(vi) The expected closing date; and
(vii) All sources of financing for the transaction.
(3) The following:
(i) A statement as to whether a party to the transaction is stipulating that the transaction is a pilot program covered transaction and a description of the basis for the stipulation; and
(ii) A statement as to whether a party to the transaction is stipulating that the transaction could result in control of a pilot program U.S. business by a foreign person or that the transaction is a foreign government-controlled transaction and, in each case, a description of the basis for the stipulation.
(4) A statement as to whether the foreign person will acquire any of the following in the pilot program U.S. business:
(i) Access to any material nonpublic technical information in the possession of the pilot program U.S. business, and if so, a brief explanation of the type of access and type of information;
(ii) Membership, observer rights, or nomination rights as set forth in § 801.209(b), and if so, a statement as to the composition of the board or other body both before and after the completion date of the transaction;
(iii) Any involvement, other than through voting shares, in substantive decisionmaking of the pilot program U.S. business regarding the use, development, acquisition, or release of critical technologies and if so, a statement as to the involvement in such substantive decisionmaking; or
(iv) Any rights that could result in the foreign person acquiring control of the pilot program U.S. business and, if so, a brief explanation of these rights.
(5) The following information regarding the pilot program U.S. business:
(i) Website address;
(ii) Principal place of business;
(iii) Place of incorporation or organization; and
(iv) A list of the addresses or geographic coordinates (to at least the fourth decimal) of all locations of the pilot program U.S. business, including the pilot program U.S. business's headquarters, facilities, and operating locations.
(6) With respect to the pilot program U.S. business that is the subject of the transaction and any entity of which that pilot program U.S. business is a parent, a brief summary of their respective business activities, as, for example, set forth in annual reports, and the product or service categories of each, including the applicable six-digit NAICS codes.
(7) A statement as to which critical technology or critical technologies the pilot program U.S. business and its subsidiaries produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop, and the relevant six-digit NAICS code or codes, as applicable under §§ 801.212 and 801.213, for each critical technology listed. This statement shall include a description (which may group similar items into general product categories) of the items and a list of any relevant Export Control Classification Numbers under the EAR and United States Munitions List categories under the ITAR, and, if applicable, identify whether any are specially designed and prepared nuclear equipment, parts and components, materials, software, and technology covered by 10 CFR part 810, nuclear facilities, equipment, and materials covered by 10 CFR part 110 or select agents and toxins covered by 7 CFR part 331, 9 CFR part 121 or 42 CFR part 73.
(8) A statement as to whether the pilot program U.S. business has any contracts (including any subcontracts, if known) that are currently in effect or were in effect within the past three years with any U.S. Government agency or component, or in the past 10 years if the contract included access to personally identifiable information of U.S. Government personnel.
(9) A statement as to whether the pilot program U.S. business has any contracts (including any subcontracts, if known) that are currently in effect or were in effect within the past five years involving information, technology, or data that is classified under Executive Order 12958, as amended.
(10) A statement as to whether the pilot program U.S. business has received any grant or other funding from the Department of Defense or the Department of Energy, or participated in or collaborated on any defense or energy program or product involving one or more critical technologies or pilot program industries within the past five years.
(11) A statement as to whether the pilot program U.S. business participated in a Defense Production Act Title III Program (50 U.S.C. 4501
(12) A statement as to whether the pilot program U.S. business has received or placed priority rated contracts or orders under the Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) regulation (15 CFR part 700), and the level(s) of priority of such contracts or orders (DX or DO) within the past three years.
(13) The name of the ultimate parent of the foreign person.
(14) A complete organizational chart, including, without limitation, information that identifies the name, principal place of business and place of incorporation or other legal organization (for entities), and nationality (for individuals) for each of the following:
(i) The immediate parent, the ultimate parent, and each intermediate parent, if any, of each foreign person that is a party to the transaction;
(ii) Where the ultimate parent is a private company, the ultimate owner(s) of such parent; and
(iii) Where the ultimate parent is a public company, any shareholder with an interest of greater than five percent in such parent.
(15) Information regarding all foreign government ownership in the foreign person's ownership structure, including nationality and percentage of ownership, as well as any rights that a foreign government holds, directly or indirectly, with respect to the foreign person.
(16) With respect to the foreign person that is party to the transaction and any of its parents, as applicable, a brief summary of their respective business activities, as, for example, set forth in annual reports.
(17) A statement as to whether any party to the transaction has been party to another transaction previously notified or submitted to the Committee, and the case number assigned by the Committee regarding such transaction(s).
(18) A statement (including relevant jurisdiction and criminal case law number or legal citation) as to whether the pilot program U.S. business, the foreign person, or any parent or subsidiary of the foreign person has been convicted in the last ten years of a crime in any jurisdiction.
(d) Each party submitting a declaration shall provide a certification of the information contained in the declaration consistent with § 800.202 of this chapter. A sample certification may be found on the Committee's section of the Department of the Treasury website at
(e) A party that offers a stipulation pursuant to paragraph (c)(3) of this section acknowledges that the Committee and the President are entitled to rely on such stipulation in determining whether the transaction is a pilot program covered transaction, a transaction that could result in control of a pilot program U.S. business by a foreign person, or a foreign government-controlled transaction for the purposes of section 721 and all authorities thereunder, and waives the right to challenge any such determination. Neither the Committee nor the President
(a) Upon receipt of a declaration submitted pursuant to § 801.401, the Staff Chairperson shall promptly inspect the declaration and shall promptly notify in writing all parties to a transaction that have submitted a declaration that:
(1) The Staff Chairperson has accepted the declaration and circulated the declaration to the Committee, and the date on which the assessment described in paragraph (b) of this section begins; or
(2) The Staff Chairperson has determined not to accept the declaration and circulate the declaration to the Committee because the declaration is incomplete, and provide an explanation of the material respects in which the declaration is incomplete.
(b) A thirty-day period for assessment of a pilot program covered transaction that is the subject of a declaration shall commence on the date on which the declaration is received by the Committee from the Staff Chairperson. Such period shall end no later than the thirtieth day after it has commenced, or if the thirtieth day is not a business day, no later than the next business day after the thirtieth day.
(a) In assessing a pilot program covered transaction submitted pursuant to § 801.401, the Committee should consider the factors specified in section 721(f) and, as appropriate, require parties to provide to the Committee the information necessary to consider such factors. The Committee's assessment shall examine, as appropriate, whether:
(1) The transaction constitutes a pilot program covered transaction and whether it could result in foreign government control over a pilot program U.S. business;
(2) There is credible evidence to support a belief that any foreign person exercising control of the pilot program U.S. business or exercising rights related to a pilot program covered investment might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States; and
(3) Provisions of law, other than section 721 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, provide adequate and appropriate authority to protect the national security of the United States with respect to the risk arising from the pilot program covered transaction.
(b) During the thirty-day assessment period, the Staff Chairperson may invite the parties to a pilot program covered transaction to attend a meeting with the Committee staff to discuss and clarify issues pertaining to the transaction.
(c) If the Committee notifies the parties to a transaction that have submitted a declaration pursuant to § 801.401 that the Committee intends to complete all action under section 721 with respect to that transaction, each party that has submitted additional information subsequent to the original declaration shall file a certification as described in § 800.202 of this chapter. A sample certification may be found on the Committee's section of the Department of the Treasury website at
(d) If a party fails to provide the certification required under paragraph (c) of this section, the Committee may, at its discretion, take any of the actions under § 801.407(a).
(a) The Committee, acting through the Staff Chairperson, may:
(1) Reject any declaration that does not comply with § 801.403 and so inform the parties promptly in writing;
(2) Reject any declaration at any time, and so inform the parties promptly in writing, if, after the declaration has been submitted and before the Committee has taken one of the actions specified in § 801.407(a):
(i) There is a material change in the pilot program covered transaction as to which a declaration has been submitted; or
(ii) Information comes to light that contradicts material information provided in the declaration by the party (or parties); or
(3) Reject any declaration at any time after the declaration has been submitted, and so inform the parties promptly in writing, if the party (or parties) that submitted the declaration does not provide follow-up information requested by the Staff Chairperson within two business days of the request, or within a longer time frame if the party (or parties) so request in writing and the Staff Chairperson grants that request in writing.
(b) The Staff Chairperson shall notify the parties that submitted a declaration when the Committee has found that the transaction that is the subject of a declaration is not a pilot program covered transaction.
(c) Parties to a transaction that have submitted a declaration pursuant to § 801.401(a) may request in writing, at any time prior to the Committee taking action under § 801.407(a), that such declaration be withdrawn. Such request shall be directed to the Staff Chairperson and shall state the reasons why the request is being made and state whether the transaction that is the subject of the declaration is being fully and permanently abandoned. An official of the Department of the Treasury will promptly advise the parties to the transaction in writing of the Committee's decision.
(d) The Committee may not request or recommend that a declaration be withdrawn and refiled, except to permit parties to a pilot program covered transaction to correct material errors or omissions in the declaration submitted with respect to that pilot program covered transaction.
(e) A party (or parties) may not submit more than one declaration for the same or a substantially similar transaction without approval from the Staff Chairperson.
(a) Upon receiving a declaration submitted pursuant to § 801.401 with respect to a pilot program covered transaction, the Committee may, at the discretion of the Committee:
(1) Request that the parties to the transaction file a written notice pursuant to subpart E;
(2) Inform the parties to the transaction that the Committee is not able to complete action under section 721 with respect to the transaction on the basis of the declaration and that the parties may file a written notice under part 800 to seek written notification from the Committee that the Committee has concluded all action under section 721 with respect to the transaction;
(3) Initiate a unilateral review of the transaction under § 801.504; or
(4) Notify the parties in writing that the Committee has concluded all action under section 721 with respect to the transaction.
(b) The Committee shall take action under paragraph (a) within the time period set forth in § 801.404(b).
The provisions of § 800.702 of this chapter shall apply to information submitted to the Committee through a declaration.
(a) Any person who fails to comply with the requirements of § 801.401 may be liable to the United States for a civil
(b) The provisions of § 800.801(a), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) shall apply to a declaration submitted to the Committee pursuant to § 801.401.
Parties to a pilot program covered transaction may notify the Committee of the transaction by filing with the Committee a written notice pursuant to § 800.401(a) of this chapter and this subpart.
(a) The provisions set forth in Subpart D—Notice; Subpart E—Committee Procedures: Review and Investigation; Subpart F—Finality of Action; Subpart G—Provision and Handling of Information; and Subpart H—Penalties of Part 800 regarding covered transactions shall apply to any pilot program covered transaction notified to the Committee.
(b) Section 800.204(e) shall not apply with respect to any pilot program covered investment for which the Committee completes all action under section 721 pursuant to § 800.504 or § 800.506(d) of this chapter.
(a) In addition to the information required pursuant to § 800.402(c), a written notice of a pilot program covered transaction filed pursuant to § 800.401(a) of this chapter shall include the following information:
(1) A statement as to whether a party to the transaction is stipulating that the transaction is a pilot program covered transaction and a description of the basis for the stipulation;
(2) A statement as to whether the foreign person will acquire any of the following in the pilot program U.S. business:
(i) Access to any material nonpublic technical information in the possession of the pilot program U.S. business, and if so, a brief explanation of the type of access and type of information;
(ii) Membership, observer rights, or nomination rights as set forth in § 801.209(b), and if so, a statement as to the composition of the board or other body both before and after the transaction; or
(iii) Any involvement, other than through voting shares, in substantive decisionmaking of the United States business regarding the use, development, acquisition, or release of critical technologies and if so, a statement as to the involvement in such substantive decisionmaking; and
(3) With respect to the pilot program U.S. business that is the subject of the transaction, a statement as to which critical technology or critical technologies the pilot program U.S. business and its subsidiaries produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop, and the relevant six-digit NAICS code, as applicable under §§ 801.212 and 801.213, for each critical technology listed. This statement shall include a description (which may group similar items into general product categories) of the items and a list of any relevant Export Control Classification Numbers under the EAR and United States Munitions List categories under the ITAR, and, if applicable, identify whether any are specially designed and prepared nuclear equipment, parts and components, materials, software, and technology covered by 10 CFR part 810, nuclear facilities, equipment, and materials covered by 10 CFR part 110 or select agents and toxins covered by 7 CFR part 331, 9 CFR part 121 or 42 CFR part 73.
(b) If the party (or parties) stipulate pursuant to § 800.402(n) of this chapter that the pilot program covered transaction that is the subject of the written notice could result in a covered transaction under part 800, the party (or parties) are not required to include in the written notice the information required by this section.
(c) A party that offers a stipulation acknowledges that the Committee and the President are entitled to rely on such stipulation in determining whether the transaction is a pilot program covered transaction, a transaction that could result in control of a pilot program U.S. business by a foreign person, or a foreign government-controlled transaction for the purposes of section 721 and all authorities thereunder, and waives the right to challenge any such determination. Neither the Committee nor the President is bound by any such stipulation, nor does any such stipulation limit the ability of the Committee or the President to act on any authority provided under section 721 with respect to any pilot program covered transaction.
Any member of the Committee, or his designee at or above the Under Secretary or equivalent level, may file an agency notice to the Committee through the Staff Chairperson regarding a pilot program covered transaction for which no declaration has been submitted pursuant to § 801.401 and no written notice has been filed under § 801.501(a) if that member has reason to believe that the transaction is a pilot program covered transaction and may raise national security considerations. Notices filed under this paragraph are deemed accepted upon their receipt by the Staff Chairperson.
Paragraphs (4)(A)(ii) (solely with respect to clauses (iii)(II) and (iv)(II) (solely with respect to an investment described in section 721(a)(4)(B)(iii)(II)) of subparagraph (B)), (4)(B)(iii)(II), (4)(B)(iv)(II) (solely with respect to an investment described in section 721(a)(4)(B)(iii)(II)), (4)(D)(i)(I), 4(D)(i)(II), (4)(D)(i)(III)(bb), (4)(D)(ii)(I)(bb), (4)(D)(ii)(II), (4)(D)(iii)(I), (4)(D)(iv), and (4)(D)(v) of subsection (a) of section 721 shall take effect on the pilot program effective date solely with respect to any pilot program covered transaction. Paragraph (4)(A)(ii) (solely with respect to clauses (iv)(I) and (v) of subparagraph (B)) of subsection (a) of section 721 shall take effect on the pilot program effective date.
Paragraphs (1)(C)(v)(I), (II), (III), (IV)(aa), (IV)(cc), (IV)(dd), (IV)(ee), (IV)(ff), and (IV)(gg) of subsection (b) of section 721 shall take effect on the pilot program effective date solely with respect to any pilot program covered transaction.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters of the Ohio River, extending the entire width of the river, from mile marker (MM) 469 to MM 470.5 in Cincinnati, OH. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment during the Yeatman's Cove fireworks display. Entry into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8 p.m. through 9 p.m. on October 11, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Matthew Roberts, Marine Safety Detachment Cincinnati, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 513-921-9033, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. This safety zone must be established by October 11, 2018, and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the scheduled date of the fireworks and compromise public safety.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display will be a safety concern for all navigable waters of the Ohio River extending from mile marker (MM) 469 to MM 470.5. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment before, during, and after the Yeatman's Cove fireworks.
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 8 p.m. through 9 p.m. on October 11, 2018. The temporary safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Ohio River, extending the entire width of the river, from MM 469 to MM 470.5. The duration of the temporary safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display.
No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the temporary safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Ohio Valley. Persons or vessels may request permission to enter the safety zone from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM radio channel 16 or phone at 1-800-253-7465. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or a designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement date and times for this safety zone, as well as any changes, through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the temporary safety zone. This temporary safety zone impacts a one and a half-mile stretch of the Ohio River for one hour on one evening. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue BNMs via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V. A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone that will prohibit entry on a one and a half mile stretch of the Ohio River for one hour. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM radio channel 16 or phone at 1-800-253-7465.
(3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or a designated representative.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters within 500 yards of the McKinley Highway and Railroad Bridge located on the Upper Mississippi River at mile marker (MM) 182.5. The safety zone is needed to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the installation of electrical lines across the river. Entry of persons or vessels into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River or a designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from October 11, 2018 until October 19, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from September 28, 2018 until October 11, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Kyle Weitzell, Sector Upper Mississippi River Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2573, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The final details regarding this project were not determined until September 17, 2018. We must establish this safety zone by September 28, 2018, and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. The NPRM process would delay establishment of the safety zone until after the date of the electrical line work and compromise public safety.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with electrical line installation over the Upper Mississippi River will be a safety concern for anyone within 500 yards of the McKinley Highway and Railroad Bridge at MM 182.5. This rule is needed to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters within the safety zone while electrical lines are pulled across the river.
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone for a three week period from September 28, 2018 through October 19, 2018, or until the electrical line work is completed, whichever occurs first. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 500 yards of the McKinley Highway and Railroad Bridge at MM 182.5 on the Upper Mississippi River, extending the entire width of the river. Transit into and through this safety zone is prohibited during periods of enforcement. This zone will be enforced on approximately nine days during the effective period, during daylight hours, and for approximately five hours on each day. This zone will begin each day that electrical line work is to be performed from approximately 9 a.m. through 2 p.m. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs) and/or through other means of public notice at least 12 hours in advance of each enforcement period, and a safety vessel will coordinate all vessel traffic during the enforcement periods. In addition, the COTP or a designated representative will release regular BNMs while the zone is in effect and will also announce the suspension of zone date via VHF-FM marine channel 16.
The duration of this temporary safety zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment on these navigable waters while the electrical lines are being pulled across the river. No vessel or person will be
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone impacts a one-half mile stretch of the Upper Mississippi River for approximately five hours on each of nine days. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue BNMs via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator because the rule will allow persons and vessels to seek permission to enter the zone and coordinated entry may be arranged on a case by case basis. Additionally, coordination with several waterways users has taken place to mitigate as much impact as possible.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that is anticipated to last approximately 5 hours per day for approximately 9 days during the effective period of this rule which will prohibit entry within 500 yards of the McKinley Highway and Railroad Bridge at MM 182.5 on the Upper Mississippi River. It is categorically excluded from
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. To seek entry into the safety zone, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by telephone at 314-269-2332 or on VHF-FM channel 16.
(3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
(e)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters of the Tennessee River from mile marker 300 to mile marker 302. This safety zone is necessary to protect persons, property, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with the underwater survey of several transmission lines. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8 a.m. on October 10, 2018 through 6 p.m. on October 17, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Nicholas Jones, Marine Safety Detachment Nashville, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 615-736-5421, email
On September 25, 2018, Triton Diving Services notified Marine Safety Detachment Nashville that their underwater transmission line survey at mile marker 301 of the Tennessee River would be ready to commence on October 10, 2018. Triton Diving Services estimates that the work will take one week, and will conclude no later than October 17, 2018.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone by October 10, 2018, and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the underwater transmission line survey will be a safety concern for anyone on a two-mile stretch of the Tennessee River. This rule is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment during the transmission line operations.
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 8 a.m. on October 10, 2018 through 6 p.m. on October 17, 2018, or until the underwater transmission line survey work is finished, whichever occurs earlier. The safety zone covers all navigable waters from mile marker 300 to mile marker 302 on the Tennessee River in Decatur, AL. The safety zone will be enforced for two periods on each day of the effective period, in the morning from 8 a.m. through noon, and in the afternoon from 1 p.m. through 6 p.m. A safety vessel will coordinate all vessel traffic during the enforcement periods. The duration of the safety zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment during the transmission line operations.
No vessel or person is permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. Coast Guard. They may be contacted on VHF Channel 13 or 16, or at 1-800-253-7465. All persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and dates for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration, of the temporary safety zone. This safety zone prohibits transit on a two-mile stretch of the Tennessee River for about 9 hours on each day of the 7 day period. Breaks in the work will allow for vessels to pass through the safety zone between the morning and afternoon enforcement periods, and a safety vessel will be on-scene to help waterway users coordinate their transits. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue BNMs via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule prohibits transit on a one-mile stretch of the Tennessee River for about 12 hours on weekdays only during a one-month period. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the U. S. Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.2.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the area must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. U.S. Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley may be contacted on VHF Channel 13 or 16, or at 1-800-253-7465.
(3) A safety vessel will coordinate all vessel traffic during the enforcement of this safety zone. All persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
(e)
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO” or “Office”) revises the claim construction standard for interpreting claims in
Michael Tierney and Jacqueline Wright Bonilla, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judges, by telephone at (571) 272-9797.
In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Office sought comments on the Office's proposed changes to the claim construction standard used for interpreting unexpired patent claims and substitute claims proposed in a motion to amend. Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceeding Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 FR 21221 (May 9, 2018).
The Office received a total of 374 comments, including 297 comments from individuals, 45 comments from associations, 1 comment from a law firm, and 31 comments from corporations. The majority of the comments were supportive of changing the claim construction standard along the lines set forth in the proposed rule. For example, major bar associations, industry groups, patent practitioners, legal professors and scholars, and individuals all supported the change. The commentators also provided helpful insights and suggested revisions, which have been considered in developing this final rule. While there was broad support expressed for using the federal court standard set forth in the proposed rule, some commentators indicated that they were opposed to the change. The Office appreciates the thoughtful comments representing a diverse set of views from the various public stakeholder communities. Upon careful consideration of the public comments, taking into account the effect of the rule changes on the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete instituted proceedings, the Office adopts the proposed rule changes (with minor deviations in the rule language, as discussed below). Any deviations from the proposed rule are based upon a logical outgrowth of the comments received.
In particular, this final rule fully adopts the federal court claim construction standard, in other words, the claim construction standard that is used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), which is articulated in
On September 16, 2011, the AIA was enacted into law (Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011)), and within one year, the Office implemented rules to govern Office practice for AIA proceedings, including IPR, PGR, CBM, and derivation proceedings pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 135, 316 and 326 and AIA sec. 18(d)(2).
Previously, in an effort to gauge the effectiveness of the rules governing AIA proceedings, the Office led a nationwide listening tour in April and May of 2014. During the listening tour, the Office solicited feedback on how to make AIA proceedings more transparent and effective by adjusting the rules and guidance to the public where necessary. To elicit even more input, in June of 2014, the Office published a Request for Comments in the
Upon receiving comments from the public and carefully reviewing the comments, the Office published two final rules in response to the public feedback on this request for comments. In the first final rule, the Office changed the existing rules to, among other things: (1) Increase the page limit for patent owner's motion to amend by ten pages and allow a claims appendix to be filed with the motion; and (2) increase the page limit for petitioner's reply to patent owner's response by ten pages. Amendments to the Rules of Practice for
The Office last issued a rule package regarding AIA proceedings on April 1, 2016. This final rule was based on comments received during a comment period that opened on August 20, 2015 (only a month after the Federal Circuit's July 2015 decision in the appeal of the first IPR filed,
Prior to this rulemaking, the PTAB construed unexpired patent claims and proposed substitute claims in AIA proceedings using the BRI standard. The BRI standard differs from the standard used in federal courts and the ITC, which construe patent claims in accordance with the principles that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit articulated in
Although the BRI standard is consistent with longstanding agency practice for patents in examination, the fact that the Office uses a claim construction standard in AIA proceedings that is different from that used by federal courts and the ITC means that decisions construing the same or similar claims in those fora may be different from those in AIA proceedings and vice versa. Minimizing differences between claim construction standards used in the various fora will lead to greater uniformity and predictability of the patent grant, improving the integrity of the patent system. In addition, using the same standard in the various fora will help increase judicial efficiency overall. One study found that 86.8% of patents at issue in AIA proceedings also have been the subject of litigation in the federal courts, and the Office is not aware of any change in this percentage since this study was undertaken. Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Arti K. Rai & Jay P. Kesan,
In addition, having AIA proceedings use the same claim construction standard that is applied in federal courts and ITC proceedings also addresses the concern that potential unfairness could result from using an arguably broader standard in AIA proceedings. According to some patent owners, the same claim construction standard should apply to both a validity (or patentability) determination and an infringement determination. Because the BRI standard potentially reads on a broader universe of prior art than does the
The Office's goal is to implement a balanced approach, providing greater predictability and certainty in the patent
In this final rule, the Office revises the rules to provide that a patent claim, or a claim proposed in a motion to amend, shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. This rule reflects that the PTAB in an AIA proceeding will apply the same standard applied in federal courts to construe patent claims. This change replaces the BRI standard for construing unexpired patent claims and proposed substitute claims in IPR, PGR, and CBM proceedings with the federal court claim construction standard, which is articulated in
Under the amended rules as adopted in this final rule, the Office will construe patent claims and proposed substitute claims in an IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding by taking into account the claim language itself, the specification, the prosecution history of the patent, and extrinsic evidence, among other things, as briefed by the parties. Having the same claim construction standard for both the original patent claims and proposed substitute claims will reduce the potential for inconsistency in the interpretation of the same or similar claim terms. Additionally, using the federal court claim construction standard is appropriate because, among other things, amendments proposed in AIA proceedings are required to be narrowing, are limited to a reasonable number of substitute claims, and are required to address patentability challenges asserted against the original patent claims. Using the same claim construction standard for interpreting both the original and amended claims also avoids the potential of added complexity and inconsistencies between PTAB and federal court proceedings, and this allows, among other things, the patent owner to understand the scope of the claims and more effectively file motions to amend. Additionally, having the same construction will reduce the potential for situations where a claim term of an original patent claim is construed one way under the federal court standard and yet the very same or similar term is construed a different way under BRI where it appears in a proposed substitute claim.
The Office will apply the standard used in federal courts, in other words, the claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), which is articulated in
Additionally, to the extent that federal courts and the ITC apply the doctrine of construing claims to preserve their validity as described in
When construing claims in IPR, PGR, and CBM proceedings, the Office will take into account the prosecution history that occurred previously at the Office, including before an examiner during examination, reissue, reexamination, and prior AIA proceedings.
During an AIA proceeding, the patent owner may file a motion to amend an unexpired patent to propose a reasonable number of substitute claims, but the proposed substitute claims “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new matter.” 35 U.S.C. 316(d) and 326(d); 37 CFR 42.121(a)(2) and 42.221(a)(2);
The Office does not expect that this rule will result in direct costs to applicable entities. The Office's understanding is informed partly by the PTAB's experience in applying
Moreover, PTAB has not found that parties to these AIA proceedings under
Given the fact that 86.8% of PTAB proceedings have been the subject of litigation in Federal court, where parties are already using the
The changes to the claim construction standard will apply to proceedings where a petition is filed on or after the effective date of the final rule. The Office will apply the federal court claim construction standard, in other words, the claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), which is articulated in
As to comments received regarding filing a prior claim construction determination, parties should submit the prior claim construction determination by a federal court or the ITC in an AIA proceeding as soon as that determination becomes available. Preferably, a prior claim construction determination should be submitted with the petition, preliminary response, or
Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 42, is amended as follows:
The Office has considered using different claim construction standards for IPR, PGR, and CBM proceedings, but, for consistency, the Office adopts the same claim construction to be applied in all IPR, PGR, and CBM proceedings. By maintaining consistency among the various proceedings, the integrity, predictability and reliability of the patent system is thus enhanced.
Sections 42.100(b), 42.200(b), and 42.300(b) are also amended to state that “[a]ny prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the claim in a civil action, or a proceeding before the [ITC], that is timely made of record in the . . . proceeding will be considered.” Under this provision, the Office will consider any prior claim construction determination in a civil action or ITC proceeding if a federal court or the ITC has construed a term of the involved claim previously using the same standard, and the claim construction determination has been timely made of record in the IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding.
Sections 42.100(b), 42.200(b), and 42.300(b) are further amended by deleting the second and third sentences, eliminating the procedure for requesting a district court-type claim construction approach for a patent expiring during an IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding. Such a procedure is no longer needed because the Office will use the same claim construction standard that is used in federal courts and ITC proceedings uniformly for interpreting all claims in an IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding.
The Office received a total of 374 written submissions of comments from intellectual property organizations, businesses, law firms, legal professors and scholars, patent practitioners, and others. The comments provided support for, opposition to, and diverse recommendations on the proposed rules. The large majority of the comments were supportive of changing the claim construction standard along the lines proposed in the proposed rule. For example, major bar associations, industry groups, patent practitioners, legal professors and scholars, and individuals supported the change.
The Office appreciates the thoughtful comments, and has considered and analyzed the comments thoroughly. All of the comments are posted on the PTAB website at
The Office's responses address the comments that are directed to the proposed changes set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking. 83 FR 21221. Any comments directed to topics that are beyond the scope of the notice of proposed rulemaking will not be addressed at this time.
The Supreme Court has endorsed the Office's ability to choose an approach to claim construction for AIA proceedings.
Notably, the statutory provision set forth in 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(4) grants the Office authority to issue “regulations . . . establishing and governing inter partes review under this chapter and the relationship of such review to other proceedings under this title.” For PGR and CBM proceedings, 35 U.S.C. 326(a)(4) contains a similar provision. Furthermore, under 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(2) and 326(a)(2), the Office must prescribe regulations “setting forth the standards for the showing of sufficient grounds to institute a review.” In prescribing regulations under 35 U.S.C. 316(a) and 326(a), and among other things, the Director has considered “the effect of any such regulation on the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings instituted under this chapter,” in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 316(b) and 326(b). In addition, the Director has carefully considered all of the comments received. As stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and with all of this information in mind, the Office's goal is to implement a fair and balanced approach, providing greater predictability and certainty in the patent system. This, in turn, implements the congressional intent of the AIA. H.R. Rep. No. 112−98, pt. I at 48 (2011), as reprinted in 2011 U.S.C.C.A.N. 67, 78;
Prior to this final rule, the PTAB already has been applying the principles articulated in
The Office recognizes that in some respects AIA proceedings serve a different purpose than that of litigation in the federal courts.
As to the comment pointing to prior arguments advanced in connection with the
As to the suggestion that the rulemaking has been arbitrary and capricious, the Office has proceeded with the implementation of AIA proceedings deliberately and with caution, continuously engaging the public and seeking feedback to gauge the effectiveness of the rules and procedures that govern AIA proceedings. At each stage of the process, including in this final rule, the Office has supported its exercise of discretion with reasoned analysis in response to comments received. For example, in the initial 2012 rulemaking, the Office adopted the BRI standard for construing claims of unexpired patents based on its prior experience, as well as adopting the principles articulated in
As noted above, since the time of the last AIA rule package, the Federal Circuit has issued a six-fold increase in the number of decisions relating to AIA proceedings. And now, in light of these decisions and based on the PTAB's experience over six years, including applying the federal court claim construction standard in AIA proceedings in certain contexts, the Office has determined that employing the district court standard for interpreting all claims in AIA proceedings will continue to enhance predictability and reliability of the patent system.
The PTAB's use of the district court standard, for interpreting all claims in AIA proceedings, will address concerns that have been continually expressed by stakeholders and demonstrated in recent studies that the use of a different claim construction standard in AIA proceedings wastes resources and has the potential for resulting in troubling differences in construction-outcomes between proceedings.
As in the federal courts and ITC, the PTAB will “seek out the correct construction—the construction that most accurately delineates the scope of the claim invention—under the framework laid out in
Furthermore, the Office already has been applying the principles articulated in
In direct contrast to AIA proceedings, the Office is required by statute to conduct reissue and reexamination proceedings according to the procedures established for initial examination. 35 U.S.C. 251(c) and 305. Under 35 U.S.C. 315(d) and 325(d), during the pendency of an AIA proceeding, “if another proceeding or matter involving the patent is before the Office, the Director may determine the manner in which the [AIA proceeding] or other proceeding or matter may proceed, including providing for stay, transfer, consolidation, or termination of any such matter or proceeding.” The Office has exercised its discretion under these statutory provisions to stay and/or terminate reexaminations and reissue proceedings. The Office has not, to date, merged or consolidated a reexamination or reissue proceeding with an AIA proceeding. Prior to making a determination to consolidate proceedings, the Office will consider whether the claim construction standard would have any material effect on the claim construction determinations in the specific proceedings at issue, for example by considering whether a term at issue in any of the proceedings has a different construction under the different claim construction standards. Additionally, as to comments that the Office will arrive at different claim constructions in AIA proceedings and reexaminations, the Office has existing tools to address these situations, including,
As stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking, one study found that 86.8% of patents at issue in AIA proceedings also have been the subject of litigation in the federal courts. Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Arti K. Rai & Jay P. Kesan,
In addition, unlike initial examination of pre-issued claims in a patent application, patent owners in AIA proceedings have not filed as many motions to amend as previously anticipated (through June 30, 2018, the Office has decided only 196 motions to amend, granting 4%, granting-in-part 6%, and denying 90%). As noted in a comment received from a trade association, patent owners are reluctant to substantially amend claims that have been asserted in a co-pending infringement litigation. This comment stated that “this is generally believed to be due to intervening rights [
On balance, after years of experience and in view of the comments received, the Office has determined that using a claim construction standard for issued patents subject to AIA proceedings that is consistent with the standard applied in federal courts and the ITC is better for advancing the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to complete timely the proceedings.
Under the amended rules, as adopted by this final rule, the PTAB will apply the same claim construction standard as used in federal courts and the ITC, “seek[ing] out the correct construction—the construction that most accurately delineates the scope of the claim invention—under the framework laid out in
As to comments that courts may not wholly accept the PTAB's constructions, this is an issue that federal courts will decide in the particular cases that come before them, based on the record available at that time. Having the same claim construction standard, however, increases the likelihood that courts may consider the PTAB's construction for a given patent.
In addition, under the amended rules, as adopted by this final rule, the PTAB
Based on its 6 years of experience with AIA proceedings, the Office has determined that the same claim construction standard should apply to both a patentability determination at the PTAB and determinations in federal court on issues related to infringement or invalidity. Under the amended rules as adopted by this final rule, the PTAB also will consider any prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the claim in a civil action or a proceeding before the ITC that is timely made of record in an AIA proceeding. This will increase the likelihood that claims are not argued one way in order to maintain their patentability (or to show that the claims are unpatentable) and in a different way against an opposing party in an infringement case, consistent with recent case law from the Federal Circuit.
Additionally, as discussed above, one of the originally suggested bases for using the BRI in 2012 has not been borne out. Claim amendments in AIA proceedings are relatively rare and substantially different than amendments during examination, and the Office no longer believes that the opportunity to amend in an AIA proceeding justifies the use of the BRI.
The Federal Circuit's decision in
Further, as to the suggestion that the Office require patent owners to amend claims to reflect a federal court claim construction, such a suggestion is not adopted for a variety of reasons. Among other things, the PTAB will construe claims under the final rule using the same objective standards under the
To the extent that federal courts and the ITC still apply the doctrine of construing claims to preserve their validity as described in
Even in those extremely rare cases in which the courts applied the doctrine, the courts “looked to whether it is reasonable to infer that the PTO would not have issued an invalid patent, and that the ambiguity in the claim language should therefore be resolved in a manner that would preserve the patent's validity,” noting that this was “the rationale that gave rise to the maxim in the first place.”
Moreover, it also may not be necessary to determine the exact outer boundary of claim scope because only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (
The PTAB may treat a prior district court claim construction order the same way that such an order may be treated by a different district court. In particular, the PTAB will consider prior claim constructions from district courts or the ITC, if timely made of record, and give them appropriate weight. Non-exclusive factors to be considered may include, for example, how thoroughly reasoned the prior decision is and the similarities between the record in the district court or the ITC and the record before the PTAB. It also may be relevant whether the prior claim construction is final or interlocutory. These factors will continue to be relevant under the district court claim construction standard, which is articulated in
Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c) (or any other law).
The Office, nevertheless, published the notice of proposed rulemaking for comment as it sought the benefit of the public's views on the Office's proposed changes to the claim construction standard for reviewing patent claims and proposed substitute claims in AIA proceedings before the Board.
This final rule revises certain rules and trial practice procedures before the Board. Any requirements resulting from these changes are of minimal or no additional burden to those practicing before the Board.
For the foregoing reasons, the changes in this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to, a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Administrative practice and procedure, Inventions and patents.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office amends part 42 of title 37 as follows:
35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), 6, 21, 23, 41, 135, 311, 312, 316, and 321-326; Public Law 112-29, 125 Stat. 284; and Pub. L. 112-274, 126 Stat. 2456.
(b) In an
(b) In a post-grant review proceeding, a claim of a patent, or a claim proposed in a motion to amend under § 42.221, shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
(b) In a covered business method patent review proceeding, a claim of a patent, or a claim proposed in a motion to amend under § 42.221, shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. Any prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the claim in a civil action, or a proceeding before the International Trade Commission, that is timely made of record in the covered business method patent review proceeding will be considered.
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service is amending
Lizbeth Dobbins at (202) 268-3789 or Garry Rodriguez at (202) 268-7261.
The Postal Service published a notice of proposed rulemaking on July 23, 2018, (83 FR 34806-07) to amend the DMM to remove all references to the POSTNET barcode. This decision was based on the limited use of the POSTNET barcode and the need to simplify the standards in regard to barcoding letter-size and flat-size mailpieces.
The Postal Service received 1 formal response which was in agreement with the removal of POSTNET barcodes in the DMM.
The Postal Service will remove all references to the POSTNET barcode from the DMM. The Postal Service will continue to process mailpieces with a POSTNET barcode to accommodate customers who may have preprinted stock bearing a POSTNET barcode.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
The Postal Service adopts the following changes to
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is 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.
An automation letter or a letter claimed at Enhanced Carrier Route saturation or high density automation letter prices may not bear a 5-digit or ZIP+4 Intelligent Mail barcode in the lower right corner (barcode clear zone). The piece may bear an additional Intelligent Mail barcode in the address block only if a qualifying Intelligent Mail barcode with a delivery point routing code appears in the lower right corner.
* * * An additional Intelligent Mail barcode may also appear in the address block of an automation flat, when the qualifying Intelligent Mail barcode is not in the address block. * * *
Intelligent Mail barcodes (IMb) do not meet barcode eligibility requirements for parcels and do not qualify for any barcode-related prices for parcels, but one barcode may be included only in the address block on a parcel, except on eVS parcels. An Intelligent Mail barcode in the address block must be placed according to 5.3.
* * * The required FIM pattern as shown in Exhibit 8.2.0 below depends on the type of mail and the presence of an Intelligent Mail barcode as follows:
An Intelligent Mail barcode is a USPS-developed method to encode ZIP Code information on mail that can be read for sorting by automated machines. Intelligent Mail barcodes also encode other tracking information.
* * * Mailpieces must meet the following specifications:
b. Flat-size mailpieces may be mailed at nonautomation or automation prices.
* * * When placing indicia on mailpieces, position indicia at least
e. Do not allow the indicia to infringe on the areas reserved for the FIM, Intelligent Mail barcode, or optical character reader (OCR) clear zone.
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
EPA is withdrawing significant new use rules (SNURs) promulgated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 27 chemical substances, which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). EPA published these SNURs using direct final rulemaking procedures, which requires EPA to take certain actions if an adverse comment is received. EPA received adverse comments and a request to extend the comment period regarding the SNURs identified in the direct final rule. Therefore, the Agency is withdrawing the direct final rule SNURs identified in this document, as required under the direct final rulemaking procedures.
The direct final rule published at 83 FR 40986 on August 17, 2018, is withdrawn effective October 11, 2018.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0414, is available at
A list of potentially affected entities is provided in the
In the
EPA determined that this document is not subject to the 30-day delay of effective date generally required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(d)) because of the time limitations for publication in the
This action withdraws regulatory requirements that have not gone into effect and which contain no new or amended requirements and reopens a comment period. As such, the Agency
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving Ohio's revisions to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO
This final rule is effective on November 13, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0165. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Mary Portanova, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-5954,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
On March 13, 2017, Ohio submitted revisions to the Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-18 (OAC 3745-18), effective on February 16, 2017, for incorporation by EPA into the Ohio SO
Ohio's March 13, 2017 submittal included rules which Ohio had developed to address CAA requirements for its 1-hour SO
The comment period on EPA's August 16, 2018 (83 FR 40723) notice of proposed rulemaking closed on September 17, 2018. EPA received one public comment, which generally supported EPA's proposed action. This comment and EPA's response are described below.
EPA is approving Ohio's March 13, 2017 submittal of OAC 3745-18-01; OAC 3745-18-03; and OAC 3745-18-04
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Ohio regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 10, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
The revision reads as follows:
(a) EPA is approving, disapproving or taking no action on various portions of the Ohio sulfur dioxide control plan as noticed below. The disapproved portions of the Ohio plan do not meet the requirements of § 51.13 of this chapter in that they do not provide for attainment and maintenance of the national standards for sulfur oxides (sulfur dioxide).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. The revision (Maryland SIP Revision #18-03) pertains to a new Maryland regulation that establishes ozone season nitrogen oxides (NO
This final rule is effective on November 13, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0507. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Marilyn Powers, (215) 814-2308, or by email at
On August 8, 2018 (83 FR 39014), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Maryland. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of new Code of Maryland Regulation (COMAR) 26.11.40—
The NO
In Maryland, Luke Paper Mill (formerly the Westvaco pulp and paper mill) was the only facility with large non-EGUs that participated in the NO
Subsequent to adoption of COMAR 26.11.14.07, Maryland determined that additional applicable units have either started operation or were previously not subject but have become subject to the requirements for non-EGUs under the NO
New COMAR 26.11.40 establishes NO
COMAR 26.11.14 was revised to reflect the changed NO
EPA finds that this May 2018 SIP submittal meets Maryland's NO
EPA received three anonymous comments on the NPRM, all of which are in the docket for this rulemaking at
EPA is approving Maryland's May 15, 2018 SIP revision submittal as a revision to the Maryland SIP in accordance with section 110 of the CAA as the SIP meets requirements in the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.121 related to the NO
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of new Maryland regulation COMAR 26.11.40 and revisions to COMAR 26.11.01 and 26.11.17 to meet the requirements for non-EGUs under the NO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 10, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving new Maryland regulation COMAR 26.11.40 and revisions to COMAR 26.11.01 and COMAR 26.11.14 to address the requirements of the NO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, Department of Health and Human Services.
Final rule.
The Department of Health and Human Services is updating its regulations to reflect required annual inflation-related increases to the civil monetary penalties in its regulations, pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.
This rule is effective October 11, 2018.
Shaunta Johnson, Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy and Accountability, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, Room 514-G, Hubert Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201; 202-690-6396; FAX 202-690-5405.
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (the “2015 Act”), which is intended to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties (CMPs) and to maintain the deterrent effect of such penalties, requires agencies to adjust the civil monetary penalties for inflation annually.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) lists the civil monetary penalty authorities and the penalty amounts administered by all of its agencies in tabular form in 45 CFR 102.3.
The annual inflation adjustment for each applicable civil monetary penalty is determined using the percent increase in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October of the year in which the amount of each civil penalty was most recently established or modified. In the December 15, 2017, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Agencies and Departments, M-18-03,
Using the 2018 multiplier, HHS adjusted all its applicable monetary penalties in 45 CFR 102.3.
The 2015 Act requires federal agencies to publish annual penalty inflation adjustments notwithstanding section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Section 4(a) of the 2015 Act directs federal agencies to publish annual adjustments no later than January 15th of each year thereafter. In accordance with section 553 of the APA, most rules are subject to notice and comment and are effective no earlier than 30 days after publication in the
According to OMB's Memorandum M-18-03, the phrase “notwithstanding section 553” means that “the public procedure the APA generally requires—notice, an opportunity for comment, and a delay in effective date—is not required for agencies to issue regulations implementing the annual adjustment.” Consistent with the language of the 2015 Act and OMB's implementation guidance, this rule is not subject to notice and an opportunity for public comment and will be effective immediately upon publication.
Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-18-03, HHS has determined that the annual inflation adjustment to the civil monetary penalties in its regulations does not trigger any requirements under procedural statutes and Executive Orders that govern rulemaking procedures.
This rule is effective October 11 2018. The adjusted civil monetary penalty amounts apply to penalties assessed on or after October 11, 2018, if the violation occurred on or after November 2, 2015. If the violation occurred prior to November 2, 2015, or a penalty was assessed prior to September 6, 2016, the pre-adjustment civil penalty amounts in
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties.
For reasons discussed in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services amends subtitle A, title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
Public Law 101-410, Sec. 701 of Public Law 114-74, 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for the gray triggerfish commercial sector in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) through this temporary rule. NMFS projects that 2018 commercial landings for gray triggerfish will reach the commercial annual catch target (ACT) (commercial quota) by October 7, 2018. Therefore, NMFS is closing the commercial sector for Gulf gray triggerfish on October 7, 2018, and it will remain closed through the end of the fishing year on December 31, 2018. This closure is necessary to protect the Gulf gray triggerfish resource.
This temporary rule is effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, on October 7, 2018, until 12:01 a.m., local time, on January 1, 2019.
Lauren Waters, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
NMFS manages the Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes gray triggerfish, under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP and NMFS implements the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All gray triggerfish weights discussed in this temporary rule are in round weight.
On August 4, 2008, NMFS established gray triggerfish AMs as well as commercial quotas for gray triggerfish through Amendment 30A to the FMP (73 FR 38139). On May 9, 2013, NMFS issued a final rule to implement Amendment 37 to the FMP (78 FR 27084). In part, Amendment 37 revised gray triggerfish commercial ACLs and ACTs. The 2018 commercial quota (
As specified by 50 CFR 622.41(b)(1), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for gray triggerfish when the commercial quota is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined the 2018 commercial quota for Gulf gray triggerfish will be reached by October 7, 2018. Accordingly, this temporary rule closes the commercial sector for Gulf gray triggerfish effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, October 7, 2018, and it will remain closed until the start of the next commercial fishing season on January 1, 2019.
During the commercial closure, the operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef fish having gray triggerfish onboard must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such gray triggerfish prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, October 7, 2018. During the closure, the sale or purchase of gray triggerfish taken from the Gulf EEZ is prohibited. The prohibition on the sale or purchase does not apply to gray triggerfish that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, October 7, 2018, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor.
The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf gray triggerfish and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.41(b)(1) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial sector for gray triggerfish constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because Amendment 37 to the FMP (78 FR 27084; May 9, 2013), which established the closure provisions, was subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect gray triggerfish since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and could potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial quota.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; notification of adjustment and recalculation of quotas.
In this final rule, NMFS modifies the baseline annual U.S. quota and subquotas for Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) and the baseline annual U.S. North Atlantic albacore (northern albacore or NALB) quota to reflect quotas adopted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). NMFS also updates regulatory language on school BFT to reflect current ICCAT requirements. NMFS also makes a minor change to the Atlantic tunas size limit regulations to address retention, possession, and landing of bigeye and yellowfin tuna damaged through predation by sharks and other marine species. This action is necessary to implement binding recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). NMFS also provides notice of adjustment of the 2018 BFT Reserve category quota and the 2018 NALB baseline quota to account for the available underharvest from 2017, consistent with the Atlantic tunas quota regulations. NMFS further recalculates the BFT Purse Seine and Reserve category quotas that were announced earlier this year, in accordance with the quotas in this final rule.
Effective October 10, 2018.
Supporting documents, including the Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review, and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, may be downloaded from the HMS website at
Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale, 978-281-9260.
Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT), bigeye tuna, albacore tuna (NALB), yellowfin tuna, and skipjack tuna (hereafter referred to as “Atlantic tunas”) are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
Background information about the need to modify the U.S. BFT baseline quota and subquotas and the U.S. NALB baseline quota, as well as detailed descriptions of changes to the existing regulations regarding school BFT and size requirements for retention, possession, and landing of bigeye and yellowfin tuna damaged by predation, were provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 31517, July 6, 2018) and most of that background information is not repeated here. The 30-day comment period ended August 6, 2018. All Total Allowable Catch (TAC), quota, and weight information in this action are whole weight amounts.
Consistent with the regulations regarding annual BFT quota adjustment, NMFS annually announces the addition of available underharvest, if any, to the BFT Reserve category in a
At its November 2017 meeting, after considering the advice of ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS), ICCAT adopted Recommendation 17-06 (Recommendation by ICCAT for an Interim Conservation and Management Plan for western Atlantic BFT) for 2018 through 2020. An interim approach was selected in light of the SCRS' new stock assessment approach and ICCAT's anticipated development of management procedures for the stock by 2020. Management procedures are a way to manage stocks in light of stock assessment and other scientific uncertainties and include use of stock monitoring, pre-agreed actions based on triggers (
Recommendation 17-06 maintained the quota allocations to individual Contracting Parties (
This action implements the ICCAT-recommended quota of 1,272.86 mt. The table below shows the final baseline
Within the BFT quota proposed in this action and consistent with the ICCAT-recommended limit on the harvest of school BFT (measuring 27 to less than 47 inches curved fork length (CFL)), the school BFT subquota is 127.3 mt. This final action also amends the regulations regarding annual quota adjustments to specify that NMFS may adjust the annual school BFT subquota to ensure compliance with the ICCAT-recommended procedures for addressing overharvest of school BFT. This amendment is needed because the current regulatory text refers to outdated language (regarding multi-year “balancing periods”) from a previous ICCAT recommendation.
This final rule also provides notice that, consistent with the BFT quota regulations at § 635.27(a)(10), NMFS augments the BFT Reserve category quota with allowable underharvest, if any, from the previous year. NMFS makes such adjustments consistent with ICCAT limits and when complete catch information for the prior year is available and finalized. The maximum underharvest that a Contracting Party may carry forward from one year to the next is 10 percent of its initial catch quota, which for 2017 equals 108.38 mt for the United States.
For 2017, the adjusted BFT quota was 1,192.17 mt (1,083.79 mt + 108.38 mt of 2016 underharvest carried forward to 2017). The total 2017 BFT catch, which includes landings and dead discards, was 997.86 mt, which is 194.31 mt less than the 2017 adjusted quota. Thus, the 2018 adjusted BFT quota is 1,381.24 mt (baseline quota of 1,272.86 mt + underharvest carryover of 108.38 mt).
Pursuant to § 635.27(a)(4), NMFS annually determines the amount of quota available to the Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category participants, based on their BFT catch (landings and dead discards) in the prior year and reallocates the remainder to the Reserve category. Because the U.S. baseline quota and subquotas are increasing via this action, NMFS in this rule is also recalculating the 2018 Purse Seine and Reserve category quotas that were announced earlier this year. NMFS previously announced that 46.1 mt were available to the Purse Seine category for 2018, and the amount of Purse Seine category quota to be reallocated to the Reserve category was 138.2 mt (184.3 mt − 46.1 mt) (83 FR 17110, April 18, 2018). To account for the ICCAT quota increase addressed in this rule, NMFS is first adjusting the 2018 Purse Seine category quota to reflect the ICCAT quota increase. As a result, the baseline Purse Seine category quota initially increases by 35.2 mt to 219.5 mt. NMFS then recalculates the amounts of quota available to individual Purse Seine category participants for 2018 using the final baseline Purse Seine category quota (219.5 mt). Adjusted for the quota increase, 55 mt are available for Purse Seine category participants in 2018. Consistent with § 635.27(a)(4)(v)(C), NMFS will notify Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine fishery participants of the adjusted amount of quota available for their use in 2018 through the Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) electronic system and in writing.
The remaining 164.5 mt (219.5 mt−55 mt = 164.5 mt) is added to the 2018 Reserve category quota. This final rule also increases the baseline annual Reserve category quota by 4.7 mt from 24.8 mt to 29.5 mt. NMFS made four inseason quota transfers totaling 84.5 mt from the Reserve category in 2018 to date: 10 mt from the Reserve category to the General category effective February 28, 2018, through March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9232, March 5, 2018), 44.5 mt to the Longline category effective April 13, 2018, through December 31, 2018 (83 FR 17110, April 18, 2018), 30 mt from the Reserve category to the Harpoon category effective August 2, 2018, through November 15, 2018 (83 FR 38664, August 7, 2018), and 60 mt from the Reserve category to the General category effective September 18, 2018, through September 30, 2018 (83 FR 47843, September 21, 2018). Thus, the adjusted 2018 Reserve category quota as of publication of this action is: 24.8 mt (baseline) + 4.7 mt (ICCAT quota increase to baseline) − 144.5 (quota transfers) + 164.5 mt (Purse Seine adjustment) + 108.38 mt (underharvest carryover) = 157.9 mt.
In 2017, following consideration of SCRS' work to test a set of harvest control rules through management strategy evaluation simulations, ICCAT adopted an interim harvest control rule for NALB, the first for any ICCAT stock, with the goal of adopting a long-term harvest control rule following further management strategy evaluation testing over the next few years. In ICCAT Recommendation 17-04 (Recommendation by ICCAT on a Harvest Control Rule for North Atlantic Albacore Supplementing the Multiannual Conservation and Management Programme, Recommendation 16-06), ICCAT adopted a 3-year constant annual TAC of 33,600 t for 2018 through 2020; this 20-percent increase from the current 28,000-t TAC is consistent with the Commission's chosen stability clause, which limits the TAC increase to 20 percent. The recommendation calls on the SCRS to continue to develop the management strategy evaluation framework over the 2018-2020 period and calls on ICCAT to review the interim harvest control rule in 2020 with a view to adopting a long-term management procedure at that point.
This action implements the annual U.S. NALB quota of 632.4 mt adopted in ICCAT Recommendation 17-04. Because ICCAT adopted annual TACs for 2018 through 2020, NMFS currently anticipates that the annual baseline quota would be in effect through 2020; it will remain in place unless and until a new TAC is adopted by ICCAT.
Consistent with the NALB quota regulations at § 635.27(e), NMFS adjusts the U.S. annual northern albacore quota for allowable underharvest, if any, in the previous year. NMFS makes such adjustments consistent with ICCAT limits and when complete catch information for the prior year is available and finalized. The maximum underharvest that a Contracting Party may carry forward from one year to the next is 25 percent of its initial catch quota, which, relevant to 2017, equals 131.75 mt for the United States.
For 2017, the adjusted NALB quota was 658.75 mt (527 mt + 131.75 mt of 2016 underharvest carried forward to 2017). The total 2017 NALB catch was 236.79 mt and this is 421.96 mt less than the 2017 adjusted quota. Thus, the underharvest for 2017 is 421.96 mt, 131.75 mt of which may be carried forward to the 2018 fishing year. As a result, the 2018 adjusted northern albacore quota is 632.4 mt + 131.75 mt, totaling 764.15 mt.
Minimum fish size regulations have applied for Atlantic bluefin tuna, bigeye tuna, and yellowfin tuna since 1996, when NMFS implemented the 27-inch minimum size for BFT consistent with ICCAT requirements, and also implemented a 27-inch minimum size for bigeye and yellowfin tuna for identification and enforcement purposes. Under existing regulations, these fish may be landed round with fins intact, or eviscerated with the head and fins removed as long as one pectoral fin and the tail remain attached. They cannot be filleted or cut into pieces at sea. The upper and lower lobes of the tail may be removed from tunas for storage purposes, but the fork of the tail must remain intact.
To facilitate enforcement, total curved fork length (CFL) is the sole criterion for determining the size class of whole (with head) Atlantic tunas. CFL is measured by tracing the contour of the body from the tip of the upper jaw to the fork of the tail in a line that runs along the top of the pectoral fin and the top of the caudal keel. Pectoral fin curved fork length (PFCFL) is the sole criterion for determining the size class of a
Fishermen have reported that they, at times, catch bigeye and yellowfin tuna that have been damaged by predation by sharks or other marine species. In those cases, a CFL measurement may not be possible if the fork of the tail has been removed by predation. Although the
NMFS received three written comments on the proposed rule. Below, NMFS summarizes and responds to all comments made specifically on the proposed rule during the comment period.
NMFS is currently preparing a draft Three-Year Review of the Individual Bluefin Quota Program. NMFS plans to conduct scoping in the future to respond to that review, as well as consider other potential changes to the regulations applicable to the pelagic longline fishery and the directed bluefin fisheries. NMFS also initiated a separate scoping process in the spring of 2018 to consider a range of issues and options regarding possible area-based and weak hook management changes. The subject time/area closures, gear restricted areas, and weak hook requirement were originally implemented to reduce incidental BFT catch that occurs during pelagic longline operations. Depending on the outcome of NMFS' review, NMFS anticipates publishing a proposed rule on these other potential changes to the regulations in spring 2019.
NMFS cannot affirm the comment that trimming of the damaged area by fishermen prior to landing is a common or routine practice. Furthermore, for Atlantic tunas this practice is illegal. For enforcement purposes, curved fork length is the sole criterion for determining the size of Atlantic tunas, and this measurement is taken either from the tip of the upper jaw to the fork of the tail (total curved fork length) or, for BFT with the head removed, from the dorsal insertion of the pectoral fin to the fork of the tail (pectoral fin curved fork length). Regulations require that Atlantic tunas be maintained through offloading either in round form or eviscerated with the head and fins removed, provided one pectoral fin and the tail remain attached. The upper and lower lobes of the tuna tail may be removed for storage purposes as long as the fork of the tail remains intact. See § 635.30(a). It is NMFS' understanding that some Atlantic tunas dealers trim away predation-damaged area of the tuna after landing and offloading to help preserve the fish. Legally, trimming may only occur after landing and offloading.
The proposed rule specified that no person shall cut or otherwise alter the damaged area of the fish. This prohibition is necessary, for enforcement purposes, to preserve evidence that the carcass was bitten.
As described in the response to Comment 3 above, NMFS made changes to the regulatory text of the proposed rule in response to the comment that other marine predators may cause damage similar to that caused by shark bites. Specifically, the final rule adds language to the size limit regulations applicable to bigeye and yellowfin tuna at § 635.20(c)(3), providing that a bigeye or yellowfin tuna that is damaged through predation by sharks and other marine species may be retained, possessed, or landed only if the length of the remainder of the fish is equal to or greater than 27 inches (69 cm). No person shall cut or otherwise alter the predation-damaged area in any manner.
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the final rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
There is good cause under U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date and to make the rule effective upon filing in the
For example, under the northern albacore regulations, NMFS must close the fishery when the annual fishery quota is reached. Closure of the fishery based only on the currently codified baseline quota, rather than accounting for the higher quota in this rule, would result in an unnecessary closure and could preclude the fishery from harvesting northern albacore that are legally available, consistent with the ICCAT recommendations and the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, as amended. Furthermore, NMFS relies upon management flexibility to respond quickly to current fishery conditions and to ensure that fishermen have a reasonable opportunity to catch the available quotas. Implementing the higher bluefin tuna category quotas and adjusting the Reserve category quota as soon as possible provides NMFS the flexibility to transfer quota from the Reserve to other fishing categories inseason after considering the regulatory determination criteria, including fishery conditions at the time of the transfer. The amount of quota currently in the Reserve category for 2018 is relatively low, and NMFS may need to transfer quota as soon as possible in order to reduce the likelihood of fishery closure during the remaining subquota time periods. NMFS could not appropriately adjust the annual quotas for 2018 sooner because the data needed to make the determination (
Implementation of the change to the size limit regulations to address damaged tunas, provided that the remainder of the fish meets the current minimum size (
NMFS has prepared a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), which present and analyze anticipated social and economic impacts of the alternatives contained in this final rule. The list of alternatives and their analyses are provided in the RIR and are not repeated here in their entirety. A copy of the RIR prepared for this final rule is available from NMFS (see
The FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS' responses to those comments, 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 (see
Section 604(a)(1) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
Section 604(a)(2) of the RFA requires a summary of significant issues raised by the public in response to the IRFA, a summary of the agency's assessment of such issues, and a statement of any changes made as a result of the comments. NMFS received three comments on the proposed rule (83 FR 31517, July 6, 2018) during the comment period. A summary of these comments and the agency's responses are included above. However, NMFS did not receive comments specifically
Section 604(a)(3) of the RFA requires the response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the SBA comments. NMFS did not receive comments from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA in response to the proposed rule.
Section 604(a)(4) of the RFA requires agencies to provide descriptions of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The SBA has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesters. This provision is made under SBA's regulations for an agency to develop its own industry-specific size standards after consultation with Advocacy 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 published a December 29, 2015, final rule (80 FR 81194), which became effective on July 1, 2016. The implementing regulations for that rule at 50 CFR 200.2 established a small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for RFA compliance purposes. NMFS considers all commercial HMS permit holders to be small entities because they had average annual receipts of less than $11 million for commercial fishing.
As described in the recently published final rule to implement quarterly Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) accounting (82 FR 61489, December 28, 2017), the average annual gross revenue per active pelagic longline vessel was estimated to be $308,050 for 2013 through 2016. NMFS considers all HMS Atlantic Tunas Longline permit holders (280 as of October 2017) to be small entities because these vessels have reported annual gross receipts of less than $11 million for commercial fishing. NMFS is unaware of any other Atlantic Tunas category permit holders that potentially could earn more than $11 million in revenue annually. HMS Angling category permits, which are recreational fishing permits, are typically obtained by individuals who are not considered small entities for purposes of the RFA. Therefore, NMFS considers all Atlantic Tunas permit holders and HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders subject to this action to be small entities. The following section provides a description of how NMFS calculated the average revenues and then provides a description of and, where feasible, provides an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply as required by RFA.
This action would apply to all participants in the Atlantic tunas fisheries,
Under section 604(a)(5) of the RFA, agencies are required 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.
Under section 604(a)(6) of the RFA, agencies are required to describe the steps the agency has 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.
In this rulemaking, NMFS analyzed two quota implementation alternatives for BFT and NALB: first, the status quo U.S. baseline quota(s) established in 2015, and second, the preferred alternative to implement the U.S. quota in accordance with the 2017 ICCAT Recommendation and regulations regarding the distribution of the quota within U.S. fishing categories. The final rule implements the recently adopted ICCAT-recommended U.S. BFT and NALB quotas and, for BFT, applies the allocations for each quota category per the codified quota regulations. This action is consistent with ATCA, under which the Secretary promulgates regulations as necessary and appropriate to implement binding ICCAT recommendations.
NMFS has estimated the average impact that establishing the increased annual U.S. baseline BFT quota for all domestic fishing categories would have on individual categories and the vessels within those categories. As mentioned above, a 2017 ICCAT recommendation increased the annual U.S. baseline BFT quota for 2018, 2019, and 2020 to 1,247.86 mt and provides 25 mt annually for incidental catch of BFT related to directed longline fisheries in the NED. The annual U.S. baseline BFT subquotas would be adjusted consistent with the process (
To calculate the average ex-vessel BFT revenues under this action, NMFS first estimated potential category-wide revenues. The most recent ex-vessel average price per pound information for each commercial quota category is used to estimate potential ex-vessel gross revenues under the subquotas (
No affected entities would be expected to experience negative, direct economic impacts as a result of this action. On the contrary, each of the BFT quota categories would increase relative to the baseline quotas that applied in 2015 through 2017. To the extent that Purse Seine fishery participants and IBQ participants could receive additional quota as a result of the Amendment 7-implemented allocation formulas being applied to increases in available Purse Seine and Longline category quota, those participants would receive varying amounts of an increase, which would result in direct benefits from either increased fishing opportunities or quota leasing.
The FRFA assumes that each vessel will have similar catch and gross revenues to show the relative impact of the final action on vessels. To estimate potential average ex-vessel revenues that could result from this action for BFT, NMFS divided the potential annual gross revenues for the General, Harpoon, Purse Seine, and Trap category by the number of permit holders. For the Longline category, NMFS divided the potential annual gross revenues by the number of IBQ share recipients. This is an appropriate approach for BFT fisheries, in particular, because available landings data (weight and ex-vessel value of the fish in price-per-pound) allow NMFS to calculate the gross revenue earned by a fishery participant on a successful trip. The available data (particularly from non-Longline participants) do not, however, allow NMFS to calculate the effort and cost associated with each successful trip (
Success rates vary widely across participants in each category (due to the extent of vessel effort and availability of commercial-sized BFT to participants where they fish), but for the sake of estimating potential revenues per vessel, category-wide revenues can be divided by the number of permitted vessels in each category. For the Longline fishery, actual revenues would depend, in part, on each vessel's IBQ in 2018. It is unknown what portion of HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders actively participate in the BFT fishery. HMS Charter/Headboat vessels may fish commercially under the General category quota and retention limits. Therefore, NMFS is estimating potential General category ex-vessel revenue changes using the number of General category vessels only.
Estimated potential 2018 revenues on a per vessel basis, considering the number of permit holders listed above and the subquotas, could be $2,409 for the General category; $47,848 for the Harpoon category; $310,670 for the Purse Seine category; $10,582 for the Longline category, using the 136 IBQ share recipients; and $10,556 for the Trap category. Thus, all of the entities affected by this rule are considered to be small entities for the purposes of the RFA.
Consistent with the codified BFT quota regulations at § 635.27(a)(4)(v), NMFS will continue to annually calculate the quota available to historical Purse Seine fishery participants and reallocate the remaining Purse Seine category quota to the Reserve category. NMFS is further adjusting those amounts consistent with the annual U.S. baseline BFT quota in this final rule. The analyses in this FRFA are limited to the final baseline subquotas.
Because the directed commercial categories have underharvested their subquotas in recent years, the potential increases in ex-vessel revenues above may overestimate the probable economic impacts to those categories relative to recent conditions. Additionally, there has been substantial interannual variability in ex-vessel revenues in each category in recent years, due to recent changes in BFT availability and other factors.
The 2017 NALB ICCAT recommendation increased the annual U.S. baseline NALB quota for 2018, 2019, and 2020 to 632.4 mt. Based on knowledge of current participants in the fishery and estimated gross revenues, NMFS considers all of the entities affected by the NALB quota action be small entities for the purposes of the RFA.
NMFS does not subdivide the U.S. NALB quota into category subquotas. The most recent ex-vessel average price per pound information is used to estimate potential ex-vessel gross revenues. The baseline subquotas could result in estimated gross revenues of $1.8 million annually, if finalized and fully utilized ((632.4 mt/1.25) * $1.63/lb dw). No affected entities would be expected to experience negative, direct economic impacts as a result of this action.
The change to the regulatory text concerning Atlantic bigeye and yellowfin tuna size limits applies to all fishery participants but is not expected to have significant economic impacts. This is because damage to caught bigeye and yellowfin tuna through predation by sharks and other marine species is rare, and the change to the regulatory text is not expected to result in significant changes to Atlantic tunas fishery operations.
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 statement published online serves as the small entity compliance guide, and a listserv notice containing the web address will be sent to HMS News subscribers. 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
(c) * * *
(3) No person aboard a vessel shall remove the head of a bigeye tuna or yellowfin tuna if the remaining portion would be less than 27 inches (69 cm) from the fork of the tail to the forward edge of the cut. A bigeye or yellowfin tuna that is damaged through predation by sharks or other marine species may be retained, possessed, or landed only if the length of the remainder of the fish is equal to or greater than 27 inches (69 cm). No person shall cut or otherwise alter the predation-damaged area in any manner.
(a)
(1) * * *
(i) Catches from vessels for which General category Atlantic Tunas permits have been issued and certain catches from vessels for which an HMS Charter/Headboat permit has been issued are counted against the General category quota in accordance with § 635.23(c)(3). Pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the amount of large medium and giant bluefin tuna that may be caught, retained, possessed, landed, or sold under the General category quota is 555.7 mt, and is apportioned as follows, unless modified as described under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section:
(A) January 1 through the effective date of a closure notice filed by NMFS announcing that the January subquota is reached, or projected to be reached under § 635.28(a)(1), or through March 31, whichever comes first—5.3 percent (29.5 mt);
(B) June 1 through August 31—50 percent (277.9 mt);
(C) September 1 through September 30—26.5 percent (147.3 mt);
(D) October 1 through November 30—13 percent (72.2 mt); and
(E) December 1 through December 31—5.2 percent (28.9 mt).
(2)
(i) After adjustment for the school bluefin tuna quota held in reserve (under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section), 52.8 percent (54.8 mt) of the school bluefin tuna Angling category quota may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed south of 39°18′ N lat. The remaining school bluefin tuna Angling category quota (49 mt) may be caught, retained, possessed or landed north of 39°18′ N lat.
(ii) An amount equal to 52.8 percent (52.7 mt) of the large school/small medium bluefin tuna Angling category quota may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed south of 39°18′ N lat. The remaining large school/small medium bluefin tuna Angling category quota (47.1 mt) may be caught, retained, possessed or landed north of 39°18′ N lat.
(iii) One third (1.8 mt) of the large medium and giant bluefin tuna Angling category quota may be caught retained, possessed, or landed, in each of the three following geographic areas: North of 39°18′ N lat.; south of 39°18′ N lat., and outside of the Gulf of Mexico; and in the Gulf of Mexico. For the purposes of this section, the Gulf of Mexico region includes all waters of the U.S. EEZ west and north of the boundary stipulated at 50 CFR 600.105(c).
(3)
(4) * * *
(i)
(5)
(6)
(7) * * *
(i) The total amount of bluefin tuna that is held in reserve for inseason or annual adjustments and research using quota or subquotas is 29.5 mt, which may be augmented by allowable underharvest from the previous year, or annual reallocation of Purse Seine category quota as described under paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section. Consistent with paragraphs (a)(8) through (10) of this section, NMFS may allocate any portion of the Reserve category quota for inseason or annual adjustments to any fishing category quota.
(ii) The total amount of school bluefin tuna that is held in reserve for inseason or annual adjustments and fishery-independent research is 18.5 percent (23.5 mt) of the total school bluefin tuna Angling category quota as described under paragraph (a)(2) of this section. This amount is in addition to the amounts specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this section. Consistent with paragraph (a)(8) of this section, NMFS may allocate any portion of the school bluefin tuna Angling category quota held in reserve for inseason or annual adjustments to the Angling category.
(10) * * *
(iii) Regardless of the estimated landings in any year, NMFS may adjust the annual school bluefin tuna quota to ensure compliance with the ICCAT-recommended procedures for addressing overharvest of school bluefin tuna.
(e) * * *
(1)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 620 in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2018 total allowable catch of pollock for Statistical Area 620 in the GOA.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), October 6, 2018, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2018.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2018 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA is 79,938 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (83 FR 8768, March 1, 2018) and one in-season adjustment (83 FR 42609, August 23, 2018).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the 2018 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 79,838 mt and is setting aside the remaining 100 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA.
While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of October 4, 2018.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Social Security Administration.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
We propose to amend our regulations to prohibit persons convicted of certain crimes from serving as representative payees under the Social Security Act (Act). We are proposing these revisions because of changes to the Act made by the Strengthening Protections for Social Security Beneficiaries Act of 2018.
Send comments on or before November 13, 2018.
You may submit comments by any one of three methods—internet, fax, or mail. Do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method. Regardless of which method you choose, please state that your comments refer to Docket No. SSA-2015-0006, so that we may associate your comments with the correct regulation.
1.
2. Fax:
3.
Comments are available for public viewing on the Federal eRulemaking portal at
Kevin Salamone, Office of Income Security Programs, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 966-0854. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our internet site, Social Security Online, at
Social Security's Representative Payment Program provides benefit payment management for our beneficiaries who are incapable of managing their Social Security or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments or directing another person to manage those payments due to a mental or physical impairment. Generally, if a beneficiary or recipient is under age 18, we will pay benefits to a representative payee; in certain situations, we make direct payments to a beneficiary under age 18 who shows the ability to manage the benefits. In cases where the beneficiary or recipient is 18 years or older, we select a representative payee if we believe that payment of benefits through a representative payee, rather than direct payment to the beneficiary, will better serve the beneficiary's interest. A representative payee may be an organization, such as a social service agency, or a person, such as a parent, relative, or friend of the beneficiary. We require a representative payee to use benefits in the beneficiary's best interest and, with certain exceptions, to report expenditures to us to ensure the representative payee is using funds appropriately.
When a person or an organization requests to serve as a representative payee, we investigate the potential representative payee to help ensure that the person or organization will perform the duties of a representative payee responsibly. We look at factors such as the potential representative payee's relationship to the beneficiary, any past performance as a representative payee for other beneficiaries, and any criminal history.
On April 13, 2018, the President signed into law the Strengthening Protections for Social Security Beneficiaries Act of 2018.
In order to conform our regulations to the new law, we propose, in §§ 404.2020(f) and 416.620(f), to consider the potential representative payee's criminal history when we
We also propose to add a new paragraph to current §§ 404.2022 and 416.622 of our regulations to reflect the felony prohibitions in the legislation. This new paragraph will explain that we are prohibited from selecting representative payee applicants with a felony conviction of: (1) Human trafficking, (2) false imprisonment, (3) kidnapping, (4) rape and sexual assault, (5) first-degree homicide, (6) robbery, (7) fraud to obtain access to government assistance, (8) fraud by scheme, (9) theft of government funds or property, (10) abuse or neglect, (11) forgery, or (12) identity theft.
We will also apply the background check and prohibitions to representative payee applicants under the Special Veterans Benefits program established by title VIII of the Act and part 408 of our rules. When we consider who may serve as a representative payee under the rules in part 408, we apply the title II rules that we propose to amend here, so those revisions will also apply to representative payee applicants under the Special Veterans Benefits program.
Consistent with our current policy, we are not proposing to apply these prohibitions as an absolute bar to selection for certain representative payee applicants. Instead, we will consider the criminal history of the applicant along with our other evaluation criteria
Consistent with the new law, we will not apply the criminal prohibitions as an absolute bar if the representative payee applicant is: The custodial parent of the minor child beneficiary the representative payee applicant seeks to serve; the custodial parent of the disabled beneficiary the representative payee applicant seeks to serve if the beneficiary's disability began before the beneficiary attained age 22; the custodial spouse, custodial grandparent of a minor child, or custodial court-appointed legal guardian of the beneficiary the representative payee applicant seeks to serve (§§ 404.2022(f) and 416.622(f)). We also will not apply the prohibitions as an absolute bar if the representative payee applicant is the parent who was previously the representative payee for his or her minor child who since turned age 18 and continued to be eligible for benefits. (§§ 404.2022(f)(1) and 416.622(f)(1)). Finally, we will not apply the prohibitions as an absolute bar if the representative payee applicant received a Presidential or gubernatorial pardon for the conviction. (§§ 404.2022(f)(3) and 416.622(f)(3)). Instead, we will include the criminal information in our consideration of the best interests of the recipient or beneficiary when we determine whether to select an applicant to serve as a representative payee.
We are also correcting an incorrect cross reference in §§ 404.2024(a)(9) and 416.624(a)(9) to §§ 404.2022(e) and 416.622(e) respectively.
We consulted with OMB and determined that this proposed rule meets the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Thus, OMB reviewed the proposed rule.
This proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771 because it is administrative in nature and results in no more than de minimis costs.
We certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects only individuals. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
These rules do not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, do not require Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The Act authorizes us to make rules and regulations and to establish necessary and appropriate procedures to implement them.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Blind, Disability benefits, Disability insurance, Old-age, Survivors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Veterans.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Blind, Disability benefits, Public assistance programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
For the reasons stated in the preamble, we propose to amend 20 CFR chapter III, parts 404, 408, and 416 as set forth below:
Secs. 205(a), (j), and (k), and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(a), (j), and (k), and 902(a)(5)).
(d) Whether the potential payee has custody of the beneficiary;
(e) Whether the potential payee is in a position to know of and look after the needs of the beneficiary; and
(f) The potential payee's criminal history.
(f) Was convicted under Federal or State law of a felony for: Human trafficking, false imprisonment, kidnapping, rape or sexual assault, first-degree homicide, robbery, fraud to obtain access to government assistance, fraud by scheme, theft of government funds or property, abuse or neglect, forgery, or identity theft or identity fraud. We will also apply this provision to a representative payee applicant with a felony conviction of an attempt to commit any of these crimes or conspiracy to commit any of these crimes.
(1) If the representative payee applicant is the custodial parent of a minor child beneficiary, custodial parent of a beneficiary who is under a disability which began before the beneficiary attained the age of 22, custodial spouse of a beneficiary, custodial court-appointed guardian of a beneficiary, or custodial grandparent of the minor child beneficiary for whom the applicant is applying to serve as representative payee, we will not consider the conviction for one of the crimes, or of attempt or conspiracy to commit one of the crimes, listed in this paragraph, by itself, to prohibit the applicant from serving as a representative payee. We will consider the criminal history of an applicant in this category, along with the factors in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section, when we decide whether it is in the best interest of the individual entitled to benefits to appoint the applicant as a representative payee.
(2) If the representative payee applicant is the parent who was previously the representative payee for his or her minor child who has since turned age 18 and continues to be eligible for benefits, we will not consider the conviction for one of the crimes, or of attempt or conspiracy to commit one of the crimes, listed in this paragraph, by itself, to prohibit the applicant from serving as a representative payee for that beneficiary. We will consider the criminal history of an applicant in this category, along with the factors in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section, when we decide whether it is in the best interest of the individual entitled to benefits to appoint the applicant as a representative payee.
(3) If the representative payee applicant received a Presidential or gubernatorial pardon for the relevant conviction, we will not consider the conviction for one of the crimes, or of attempt or conspiracy to commit one of the crimes, listed in this paragraph, by itself, to prohibit the applicant from serving as a representative payee. We will consider the criminal history of an applicant in this category, along with the factors in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section, when we decide whether it is in the best interest of the individual entitled to benefits to appoint the applicant as a representative payee.
(a) * * *
(9) Determine whether the payee applicant is a creditor of the beneficiary (see § 404.2022(e)).
(10) Conduct a criminal background check on the payee applicant.
After we select an individual or organization to act as your representative payee, we will conduct a criminal background check on the appointed representative payee at least once every 5 years.
Secs. 702(a)(5), 807, and 810 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1007, and 1010).
After we select an individual or organization as your representative payee, we investigate him or her following the rules in § 404.2026 of this chapter.
Secs. 702(a)(5), 1631(a)(2) and (d)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5) and 1383(a)(2) and (d)(1)).
(d) Whether the potential payee has custody of the beneficiary;
(e) Whether the potential payee is in a position to know of and look after the needs of the beneficiary; and
(f) The potential payee's criminal history.
(f) Was convicted under Federal or State law of a felony for: Human trafficking, false imprisonment, kidnapping, rape or sexual assault, first-degree homicide, robbery, fraud to obtain access to government assistance, fraud by scheme, theft of government funds or property, abuse or neglect, forgery, or identity theft or identity fraud. We will also apply this provision to a representative payee applicant with a felony conviction of an attempt to commit any of these crimes or conspiracy to commit any of these crimes.
(1) If the representative payee applicant is the custodial parent of a minor child beneficiary, custodial parent of a beneficiary who is under a disability which began before the beneficiary attained the age of 22, custodial spouse of a beneficiary, custodial court-appointed guardian of a beneficiary, or custodial grandparent of the minor child beneficiary for whom the applicant is applying to serve as
(2) If the representative payee applicant is the parent who was previously the representative payee for his or her minor child who has since turned age 18 and continues to be eligible for benefits, we will not consider the conviction for one of the crimes, or of attempt or conspiracy to commit one of the crimes, listed in this paragraph, by itself, to prohibit the applicant from serving as a representative payee for that beneficiary. We will consider the criminal history of an applicant in this category, along with the factors in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section, when we decide whether it is in the best interest of the individual entitled to benefits to appoint the applicant as a representative payee.
(3) If the representative payee applicant received a Presidential or gubernatorial pardon for the relevant conviction, we will not consider the conviction for one of the crimes, or of attempt or conspiracy to commit one of the crimes, listed in this paragraph (f), by itself, to prohibit the applicant from serving as a representative payee. We will consider the criminal history of an applicant in this category, along with the factors in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section, when we decide whether it is in the best interest of the individual entitled to benefits to appoint the applicant as a representative payee.
(a) * * *
(9) Determine whether the payee applicant is a creditor of the beneficiary (see § 404.2022(e)) of this chapter.
(10) Conduct a criminal background check on the payee applicant.
After we select an individual or organization to act as your representative payee, we will conduct a criminal background check on the appointed representative payee at least once every 5 years.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Wyoming on April 5, 2018, addressing regional haze. The revisions modify the sulfur dioxide (SO
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0606, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal:
Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6252,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
On January 30, 2014, the EPA promulgated a final rule titled “Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Wyoming; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze” approving, in part, a regional haze SIP revision submitted by the State of Wyoming on January 12, 2011.
The EPA is proposing to revise the FIP per the terms of the settlement agreement and amendment described in Section II.G. to amend the NO
The EPA is also proposing to approve SIP revisions submitted by the State of Wyoming on April 5, 2018, to amend the SO
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes “as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.”
The EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999.
The CAA requires each state to develop a SIP to meet various air quality requirements, including protection of visibility.
Section 169A of the CAA directs states as part of their SIPs, or the EPA when developing a FIP in the absence of an approved regional haze SIP, to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states' implementation plans to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the “Best Available Retrofit Technology” as determined by the states through their SIPs, or as determined by the EPA when it promulgated a FIP. Under the RHR, states (or the EPA) are directed to conduct BART determinations for such “BART-eligible” sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area.
An alternative program to BART must meet requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (e)(3). These requirements for alternative programs relate to the “better-than-BART” test and fundamental elements of any alternative program.
In order to demonstrate that the alternative program achieves greater reasonable progress than source-specific BART, a state, or the EPA if developing a FIP, must demonstrate that its SIP meets the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i) through (v). The state or the EPA must conduct an analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology available and the associated reductions for each source subject to BART covered by the alternative program, termed a “BART benchmark.” Where the alternative program has been designed to meet requirements other than BART, simplifying assumptions may be used to establish a BART benchmark.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), the state or the EPA, must also provide a determination that the alternative program achieves greater reasonable progress than BART under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based on the clear weight of evidence. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), in turn, provides specific tests applicable under specific circumstances for determining whether the alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than BART. If the distribution of emissions for the alternative program is not substantially different than for BART, and the alternative program results in greater emissions reductions, then the alternative program may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress. If the distribution of emissions is significantly different, the differences in visibility between BART and the alternative program, must be determined by conducting dispersion modeling for each impacted Class I area for the best and worst 20 percent of days. This modeling demonstrates “greater reasonable progress” if both of the two following criteria are met: (1) Visibility does not decline in any Class I area; and (2) there is overall improvement in visibility when comparing the average differences between BART and the alternative program across all the affected Class I areas. Alternatively, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), states may show that the alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than the BART benchmark “based on the clear weight of evidence” determinations. Specific RHR requirements for alternative programs are discussed in more detail in Section III.
Generally, a SIP or FIP addressing regional haze must include emission limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. In addition to the RHR's requirements, general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP or FIP include all regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the alternative's enforceable requirements. See CAA section 110(a); 40 CFR part 51, subpart K.
In addition to BART requirements, as mentioned previously, each regional haze SIP or FIP must contain measures as necessary to make reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal. Finally, the SIP or FIP must establish reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for each Class I area within the state for the plan implementation period (or “planning period”), based on the measures included in the long-term strategy.
The RHR requires that a state, or the EPA if promulgating a FIP that fills a gap in the SIP with respect to this requirement, consult with FLMs before adopting and submitting a required SIP or SIP revision, or a required FIP or FIP revision.
The EPA's RHR provides two paths to address regional haze. One is 40 CFR 51.308, requiring states to perform individual point source BART determinations and evaluate the need for other control strategies. The other method for addressing regional haze is through 40 CFR 51.309, and is an option for nine states termed the “Transport Region States,” which include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming. By meeting the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309, a Transport Region State can be deemed to be making reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions for the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.
Section 309 requires those Transport Region States that choose to participate to adopt regional haze strategies that are based on recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) for protecting the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The purpose of the GCVTC was to assess information about the adverse impacts on visibility in and around the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau and to provide policy recommendations to the EPA to address such impacts. The GCVTC determined that all Transport Region States could potentially impact the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The GCVTC submitted a report to the EPA in 1996 for protecting visibility for the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau, and the EPA codified these recommendations as an option available to states as part of the RHR.
The EPA determined that the GCVTC strategies would provide for reasonable progress in mitigating regional haze if supplemented by an annex containing quantitative emission reduction milestones and provisions for a trading program or other alternative measure.
Five western states, including Wyoming, submitted implementation plans under section 309 in 2003.
Thus, rather than requiring source-specific BART controls as explained previously in Section II.B., states have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program if the alternative provides greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by the application of BART pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). Under 40 CFR 51.309, states can satisfy the SO
On January 30, 2014, the EPA promulgated a final rule titled “Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Wyoming; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze” approving, in part, a regional haze SIP revision submitted by the State of Wyoming on January 12, 2011.
Basin Electric, the State of Wyoming, and others challenged the final rule. Basin Electric challenged our action as it pertained to the NO
The settlement agreement requires the EPA to propose a FIP revision to include three major items:
• First, an alternative (BART alternative) to the NO
○ NO
○ a SO
• Second, a NO
• Third, installation of SCR on Laramie River Unit 1 by July 1, 2019, (thereby revising the compliance date of the existing SIP) and installation of SNCR on Units 2 and 3 by December 30, 2018.
In accordance with other terms of the 2017 settlement, Wyoming also submitted a SIP revision to the EPA on April 5, 2018, to revise the SO
The EPA is required, per the 2017 settlement agreement, to sign a proposed rule no later than 6 months after receipt of Wyoming's SIP submittal.
In the 2011 submittal, Wyoming determined that emission limits for
We are proposing to amend the 2014 FIP to replace the NO
The RHR establishes requirements for BART alternatives. Three of the requirements are of relevance to our evaluation of the BART alternative. We evaluate the proposed BART alternative to the NO
• A demonstration that the emissions trading program or other BART alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all sources subject to BART in the state and covered by the BART alternative program.
• A requirement that all necessary emissions reductions take place during the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze.
• A demonstration that the emissions reductions resulting from the BART alternative measure will be surplus to those reductions resulting from the measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP.
1. Demonstration that the BART alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i), we must demonstrate that the BART alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all sources subject to BART in the state and covered by the BART alternative program. For a source-specific BART alternative, the critical elements of this demonstration are:
• A list of all BART-eligible sources within the state;
• A list of all BART-eligible sources and all BART source categories covered by the BART alternative program;
• An analysis of BART and associated emission reductions;
• An analysis of projected emissions reductions achievable through the BART alternative; and
• A determination that the BART alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART.
We summarize the proposed revisions to the 2014 FIP with respect to each of these elements and provide our evaluation in the proceeding sections.
a. A list of all BART-eligible sources within the state.
Table 1 shows a list of all the BART-eligible sources in the State of Wyoming.
b. A list of all BART-eligible sources and all BART source categories covered by the BART alternative program.
Table 2 shows a list of all the BART-eligible sources covered by the BART alternative program along with the BART source category.
c. Analysis of BART and associated emission reductions
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), the BART alternative must include an analysis of BART and associated emission reductions at Laramie River Units 1-3. As noted previously, the SIP and 2014 FIP each included BART analyses and determinations for Units 1-3. Since we disapproved Wyoming's BART NO
As described previously, reductions in SO
d. Analysis of projected emissions reductions achievable through the BART alternative
To determine the projected emissions reductions achievable through the BART alternative, the emissions are calculated using the same process explained in the 2014 FIP, whereby a percent reduction is applied to the Laramie River Units 1-3 baseline emissions. However, the actual percent reduction for the BART alternative is different than the 2014 FIP because the controlled rates are different between the 2014 FIP and BART alternative. The percent reduction, for both the BART alternative and the 2014 FIP, is calculated as the controlled annual emission rate (in units of lb/MMBtu) divided by the annual average emission rate (in units of lb/MMBtu) during the BART baseline period (2001-2003). In the BART alternative, the modeled controlled NO
The controlled annual emissions rates are divided by the average emission rates during the BART baseline period (2001-2003) to calculate the percent reduction for each unit. The average emission rates during the BART baseline period for each unit are:
• Unit 1: 0.2585 lb NO
• Unit 2: 0.2703 lb NO
• Unit 3: 0.2669 lb NO
The percent reduction for each unit is applied to the baseline emissions to determine the NO
e. Determination that the BART alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), the FIP revision must provide a determination under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based on the clear weight of evidence that the BART alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than BART. Two different tests for determining whether the BART alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than BART are outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). Under the first test, if the distribution of emissions is not substantially different than under BART, and the BART alternative measure results in greater emission reductions, then the BART alternative measure may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress. Under the second test, if the distribution of emissions is significantly different, then dispersion modeling must be conducted to determine differences between BART and the BART alternative for each impacted Class I area for the worst and best 20 percent days. The modeling results would demonstrate “greater reasonable progress” if both of the following criteria are met: (1) Visibility does not decline in any Class I area; and (2) there is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by comparing the average differences between BART and the BART alternative over all affected Class I areas. This modeling test is sometimes referred to as the “two-prong test.”
For the proposed FIP revision, we determined that the BART alternative will not achieve greater emissions reductions than BART because, while the SO
CAMx has a scientifically current treatment of chemistry to simulate transformation of emissions into visibility-impairing particles of species such as ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate, and is often employed in large-scale modeling when many sources of pollution and/or long transport distances are involved. Photochemical grid models like CAMx include all emissions sources and have realistic representation of formation, transport, and removal processes of the particulate matter that causes visibility degradation. The use of the CAMx model for analyzing potential cumulative air quality impacts has been well established: The model has been used for previous visibility modeling studies in the U.S., including SIPs.
The modeling followed a modeling protocol that was reviewed by the EPA.
The CAMx-modeled concentrations for sulfur, nitrogen, and primary particulate matter (PM) were tracked using the CAMx Particulate Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) tool
As described previously, the CAMx system was configured using the 3SAQS modeling platform to simulate future year 2020 conditions for the following modeling scenarios:
•
•
•
The only differences among scenarios are the NO
Maintaining consistent model inputs allows the CAMx modeling results to be easily compared to analyze the effects of different emissions control scenarios. As described previously, the PSAT was applied to the simulations to track and account for the particulate mass concentrations that originate or are formed as a result of emissions from Laramie River.
Once all the scenarios above were simulated with the photochemical grid model, model results were post-processed to isolate the changes to visibility conditions as a result of emissions controls applied to Laramie River Units 1-3 under the scenarios described previously. To assess compliance with the RHR requirements, visibility changes are assessed during the 20 percent best visibility days and the 20 percent worst visibility days at each potentially affected federally regulated Class I area. Model-predicted visibility impacts at the thirteen Class I areas in the 4-km modeling domain were estimated for each of the three future year modeling scenarios.
The MATS tool was used to convert model concentrations into visibility estimates and account for quantifiable model bias. All models are affected by biases,
As a final step, Laramie River's visibility impact under the BART alternative is compared to the visibility impact under the Baseline and BART scenarios to determine if the BART alternative meets the requirements of the two-prong test,
The visibility impacts derived from modeling results are summarized in Tables 6 and 7. The tables show the projected Laramie River contribution to visibility on the 20 percent best days and worst days, respectively, for the 2020 Baseline (Column A), BART (Column B), and BART alternative (Column C) scenarios at each of the Class I areas analyzed. The last two columns show the predicted visibility benefits from the BART alternative scenario relative to both the 2020 baseline (Column D) and BART (Column E). Also shown at the bottom row are the average visibility values from all the areas. Negative values in Column D indicate that the BART alternative scenario has smaller contributions to visibility relative to the baseline (“prong 1”), and therefore it improves visibility over the baseline. Similarly, negative values in Column E indicate that the BART alternative scenario has smaller contributions to visibility relative to the BART scenario (“prong 2”).
Table 6 shows that the proposed BART alternative emissions will not result in degradation of visibility on the 20 percent best days compared to the 2020 baseline conditions at any of the 13 analyzed Class I areas. In each individual area, visibility is predicted to improve or remain unchanged compared to the 2020 baseline visibility since all values shown in Column D are either negative or zero. Overall, the BART alternative scenario shows an average improvement in visibility of 0.00009 deciviews (dv) relative to BART for the best 20 percent days. Table 6 also shows that for the BART alternative scenario, visibility during the best days improves or remains unchanged at all Class I areas compared to the BART scenario except for Badlands National Park.
Table 7 shows that the proposed BART alternative emissions will not result in degradation of visibility on the 20 percent worst days compared to the 2020 baseline conditions at any of the 13 analyzed Class I areas. In each individual area, visibility is predicted to improve compared to the 2020 baseline visibility, since all values in Column D are negative. Overall, the BART alternative shows an average improvement in visibility of 0.00054 dv relative to BART for the 20 percent worst days. Table 7 also shows that for the BART alternative scenario, visibility during the 20 percent worst days improves at all Class I areas compared to the BART scenario.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(e)(3), the modeling demonstrates “greater reasonable progress” if both of the following criteria are met: (1) Visibility does not decline in any Class I area; and (2) there is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by comparing the average differences between BART and the BART alternative over all affected Class I areas. For the first prong of the modeling test, the modeling results show that visibility improves or stays the same (
Additionally, AECOM used PSAT to further evaluate the modeling to determine whether the results represent “real” modeled visibility differences and not the result of numerical artifacts or “noise” in the model results. The numerical method used to simulate aerosol thermodynamics in CAMx may be subject to some level of numerical error when calculating the difference between two model simulations. This typically occurs in areas with high concentrations of sulfate and nitrate, and numerical error is manifested as areas of small random checkerboard increases and decreases in concentrations, as illustrated in the AECOM final report, Figure A-1, left panels.
Finally, we note that 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) allows for a straight numerical test, regardless of the magnitude of the computed differences. The regulation does not specify a minimum delta deciview difference between the modeled scenarios that must be achieved in order for a BART alternative to be deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress than BART. Accordingly, given that the modeling results show that visibility under the BART alternative does not decline at any of the 13 affected Class I areas compared to the baseline (prong 1) and will result in improved visibility, on average, across all 13 Class I areas compared to BART in the 2014 FIP (prong 2), we propose to find that the BART alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress than BART (2014 FIP) under the two-prong modeling test in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
2. A requirement that all necessary emissions reductions take place during the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii), all necessary emission reductions must take place during the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze. The RHR further requires a detailed description of the BART alternative measure, including schedules for implementation, the emission reductions required by the program, all necessary administrative and technical
As noted previously, the 2017 settlement agreement includes requirements for implementing the BART alternative. In addition to the emission limitations for NO
3. Demonstration that emissions reductions from the BART alternative measure will be surplus.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv), the SIP (or FIP) must demonstrate that the emissions reductions resulting from the BART alternative measure will be surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP. The baseline date for regional haze SIPs is 2002. All the NO
Finally, in accordance with the proposed establishment of SO
In addition to the BART alternative, we are also proposing to amend the 2014 FIP by revising the NO
Wyoming submitted SIP revisions on January 12, 2011, and April 19, 2012, that address regional haze requirements under 40 CFR 51.309. As explained previously, 40 CFR 51.309 allows certain western Transport Region States an optional way to fulfill regional haze requirements as opposed to adopting the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308. As required by 40 CFR 51.309, the participating states must adopt a trading program, or what has been termed the Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program (backstop trading program or trading program). One of the components of the backstop trading program is for stationary source SO
Among other things, the January 2011 and April 2012 SIP submittals contained amendments to the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) Chapter 14,
On April 5, 2018, Wyoming submitted a SIP revision containing amendments to WAQSR, Chapter 14,
We are proposing to approve Wyoming's amendments to the SO
We agree with Wyoming that the revisions to the SO
Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii), documentation of the SO
Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iii), the EPA-approved plan includes provisions requiring the monitoring, recordkeeping, and annual reporting of actual stationary source SO
Under CAA section 110(
There are seven (7) Class I areas in the State of Wyoming. The United States Forest Service manages the Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness, North Absaroka Wilderness, Teton Wilderness, and Washakie Wilderness. The National Park Service manages the Grand Teton National Park and Yellowstone National Park. The RHR grants the FLMs, regardless of whether a FLM manages a Class I area within the state, a special role in the review of regional haze implementation plans, summarized in Section II.E of this preamble.
There are obligations to consult on plan revisions under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). Thus, we consulted with the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service on the proposed FIP revision. We described the proposed revisions to the regional haze 2014 FIP and 2018 SIP revisions with the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service on August 15, 2018 and met our obligations under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3).
In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve SIP amendments, shown in Table 8, to the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations, Chapter 14,
We are also proposing to amend the Wyoming regional haze FIP contained in 40 CFR 52.2636 to remove the 2014 FIP's NO
In this document, EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the SIP amendments described in Section VII of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This proposed action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities as no small entities are subject to the requirements of this rule.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of
Under Title II of UMRA, the EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures that exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million
Executive Order 13132,
This action does not have federalism implications. The proposed FIP revisions will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.”
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the executive order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. Section 12(d) of NTTAA, Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to use the applicable monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Part 75 already incorporates a number of voluntary consensus standards. Consistent with the agency's Performance Based Measurement System (PBMS), part 75 sets forth performance criteria that allow the use of alternative methods to the ones set forth in part 75. The PBMS approach is intended to be more flexible and cost-effective for the regulated community; it is also intended to encourage innovation in analytical technology and improved data quality. At this time, the EPA is not recommending any revisions to part 75. However, the EPA periodically revises the test procedures set forth in part 75. When the EPA revises the test procedures set forth in part 75 in the future, the EPA will address the use of any new voluntary consensus standards that are equivalent. Currently, even if a test procedure is not set forth in part 75, the EPA is not precluding the use of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or not, as long as it meets the performance criteria specified; however, any alternative methods must be approved through the petition process under 40 CFR 75.66 before they are used.
Executive Order 12898, establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice.
I certify that the approaches under this proposed rule will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous/tribal populations. As explained previously, the Wyoming Regional Haze FIP, as revised by this action, will result in a significant reduction in emissions compared to current levels. Although this revision will allow an increase in future emissions as compared to the 2014 FIP, the proposed FIP, as a whole, will still result in overall NO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) This section also applies to each owner and operator of the following emissions units in the State of Wyoming for which EPA disapproved the State's BART determination and issued a SO
(i) Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station Units 1, 2, and 3;
(ii) PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3; and
(iii) PacifiCorp Wyodak Power Plant Unit 1.
(b) * * *
(4) Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the equipment required by this section to sample, analyze, measure, and provide, by means of readings recorded at least once every 15 minutes (using an automated data acquisition and handling system (DAHS)), a permanent record of SO
(12)
(13)
(c) * * *
(1) The owners/operators of emissions units subject to this section shall not emit, or cause to be emitted, PM, NO
(d) * * *
(2) The owners and operators of Laramie River Station Unit 1 shall comply with the NO
(3) The owners and operators of the other BART sources subject to this section shall comply with the emissions limitations and other requirements of this section by March 4, 2019.
(4)
(ii) Alternatively, the owners and operators of PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3 will permanently cease operation of this unit on or before December 31, 2027.
(e)
(1) * * *
(i)
(ii) * * *
(A) For any hour in which fuel is combusted in a unit, the owner/operator of each unit shall calculate the hourly average NO
(B) At the end of each calendar year, the owner/operator shall calculate the annual average SO
(C) An hourly average SO
(D) Data reported to meet the requirements of this section shall not include data substituted using the missing data substitution procedures of subpart D of 40 CFR part 75, nor shall the data have been bias adjusted according to the procedures of 40 CFR part 75.
(h) * * *
(1) The owner/operator of each unit shall submit quarterly excess emissions reports for SO
(i) * * *
(1) The owner/operator shall promptly submit notification of commencement of construction of any equipment which is being constructed to comply with the SO
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; revision, reopening of comment period, and announcement of public meetings.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the comment period on our March 11, 2015, proposed designation of critical habitat for the black pinesnake (
The comment period for the proposed rule published March 11, 2015, at 80 FR 12846 is reopened.
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
• On October 22, 2018, at Pearl River Community College, Lowery A. Woodall Advanced Technology Center, 906 Sullivan Drive, Hattiesburg, MS 39401.
• On October 24, 2018, at Alabama Coastal Community College, Administration Building, Tombigbee Conference Room, 30755 Hwy. 43 South, Thomasville, AL 36784. See Public Informational Meetings, below, for more information.
Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213; telephone 601-321-1122; or facsimile 601-965-4340. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed designation of critical habitat for the black pinesnake that was published in the
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act, including whether there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of black pinesnake habitat;
(b) What areas occupied by the species at the time of listing (or are currently occupied) that contain features essential for the conservation of the species we should include in the designation and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the species and why.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their probable impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) How the patch size of proposed critical habitat was derived (
(5) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change on the black pinesnake and proposed critical habitat.
(6) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final designation; in particular, we seek information on any impacts on small entities or families, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
(7) Information on the extent to which the description of economic impacts in the DEA is a reasonable estimate of the likely economic impacts and is complete and accurate.
(8) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation of critical habitat, as discussed in the associated documents of the DEA, and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
(9) Whether any areas we are proposing for critical habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, particularly those areas described in this document.
(10) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.
If you submitted comments or information on the March 11, 2015, proposed rule during the initial comment period from March 11, 2015, to May 11, 2015, please do not resubmit them. Any such comments are incorporated as part of the public record of this rulemaking proceeding, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning critical habitat will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods. The final decision may differ from this revised proposed rule, based on our review of all information received during this rulemaking proceeding.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule or DEA by one of the methods listed in
If you submit a comment via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and DEA, will be available for public inspection on
We will hold two public informational meetings on the dates and times shown in
It is our intent to discuss in this document only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for black pinesnake. For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the black pinesnake, or information regarding its biology, status, distribution, and habitat, refer to the proposed designation of critical habitat published in the
In our March 11, 2015, proposed rule, we proposed to designate critical habitat for the black pinesnake in eight units encompassing approximately 338,100 acres (136,824 hectares) in Forrest, George, Greene, Harrison, Jones, Marion, Perry, Stone, and Wayne Counties, Mississippi, and Clarke County, Alabama. In addition, we announced the availability of a DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation. We accepted comments on the proposal and DEA for 60 days, ending May 11, 2015. Based on information we received during the public comment period, we have decided to reopen the comment period
In this document, we propose certain revisions to the critical habitat designation we proposed for the black pinesnake on March 11, 2015. Specifically, we propose to revise the name of Unit 7 to reflect the removal of all lands by the landowner from the State Wildlife Management Area (WMA). As a result of the removal, the name of the proposed unit is changed from Scotch WMA to Jones Branch. We also propose to revise the boundaries of Unit 8 in Clarke County, Alabama, resulting in fewer acres on private land and more acres on State-owned land, with a net increase in acreage. An index map of the revised proposed critical habitat area (338,379 acres (136,937 hectares)) is provided in the Proposed Regulation Promulgation section, below.
In September 2015, we received notice of a recent observation of a black pinesnake in proposed Unit 7 within the Scotch WMA in Clarke County, Alabama. A black pinesnake was captured during the course of a turkey trapping study and was positively verified by Service and State herpetologists. Therefore, within proposed Unit 7, there are now 5 records for black pinesnakes, one observed as recently as July 2015, and all records are in close proximity to one another and part of the same breeding population.
In June 2016, Scotch Land Management Company, LCC, which manages most of the lands in proposed Unit 7, announced the withdrawal of its lands from the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources' WMA program. As a result, no lands within proposed Unit 7 are within the WMA, and therefore, the name of the unit is being changed from Scotch WMA to Jones Branch. Ownership of the lands within proposed Unit 7 has not changed; it remains entirely privately owned. In addition, the boundaries and acreage of proposed Unit 7 are the same as what we proposed for this unit on March 11, 2015.
During a re-examination of all the proposed critical habitat units following the close of the proposed rule's comment period on May 11, 2015, we determined that some of the best black pinesnake habitat, located on the southern end of the Stimpson WMA, had not been incorporated into proposed Unit 8, and that other land, located on the northern end of proposed Unit 8, had been included in error. This re-assessment used updated aerial imagery, and wetlands, elevation, soils, and land cover overlays, to redefine the best available, most suitable, contiguous forested habitat surrounding the known pinesnake records at that site. Accordingly, we are shifting proposed Unit 8 to the south; among other things, this results in more acreage overlapping with the WMA, as well as a slight increase in the size of the unit. The total acreage in revised proposed Unit 8 is now 5,940 acres (2,404 hectares), an increase of 279 acres (113 hectares). The State of Alabama owns 3,789 acres (1,533 hectares; 64 percent) of Unit 8, and 2,151 acres (870 hectares; 36 percent) are privately owned. The newly added land in revised proposed Unit 8 is of the same habitat type, and contiguous with, those lands analyzed in the March 11, 2015, proposed rule; therefore, the determination that these additional lands meet the definition of critical habitat is the same as for the original proposed Unit 8. As with the original lands within proposed Unit 8, the additional lands are occupied; contain all of the physical or biological features of the black pinesnake to support life-history functions essential to the conservation of the subspecies; and may require special management and protection from threats as outlined in the March 11, 2015, critical habitat proposal.
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office, Southeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be amended at 80 FR 12846 (March 11, 2015) as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(c)
Black Pinesnake (
(5)
(12) Unit 7: Jones Branch—Clarke County, Alabama.
(i) This unit is bordered by Salitpa Creek to the south, Tallahatta Creek to the north, and Harris Creek to the west. It is located approximately 2.7 mi (4.3 km) southeast of Campbell. Unit 7 is located 1.1 mi (1.8 km) north of the intersection of Old Mill Pond Road and Reedy Branch Road.
(ii) Map of Unit 7 (Jones Branch) follows:
(13) Unit 8: Fred T. Stimpson Wildlife Management Area (WMA)—Clarke County, Alabama.
(i) This unit is located between Sand Hill Creek and the Tombigbee River, is approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) north of Carlton, and is 1.5 mi (2.4 km) south of the intersection of County Road 15 and Christian Vall Road. Most of this unit is on the Fred T. Stimpson WMA.
(ii) Map of Unit 8 (Fred T. Stimpson WMA) follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of availability; request for comments.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council) and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) (Councils) have submitted Amendment 31 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Coastal Migratory Pelagics (CMP) of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) and Atlantic Region (Amendment 31) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 31 would remove Atlantic migratory group cobia (Atlantic cobia) from Federal management under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). At the same time, NMFS would implement comparable regulations under the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act) to replace the existing Magnuson-Stevens Act based regulations in Atlantic Federal waters. The purpose of Amendment 31 is to facilitate improved coordination of Atlantic cobia in state and Federal waters, thereby more effectively constraining harvest and preventing overfishing and decreasing adverse socio-economic effects to fishermen.
Written comments on Amendment 31 must be received by December 10, 2018.
You may submit comments on Amendment 31, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2018-0114,” by either of the following methods:
•
•
•
Electronic copies Amendment 31 may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at
Karla Gore, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-551-5753, or email:
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires each regional fishery management council to submit FMPs or amendments to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or amendment, publish an announcement in the
Through the CMP FMP, cobia is managed in two distinct migratory groups. The Gulf migratory group of cobia ranges in the Gulf from Texas through Florida and in the Atlantic includes cobia off the east coast of Florida. Atlantic cobia is managed from Georgia through New York. The boundary between the two migratory groups is the Georgia-Florida state boundary. Both Gulf and Atlantic cobia were assessed through SEDAR 28 in 2013 and neither stock was determined to be overfished or experiencing overfishing.
The majority of Atlantic cobia landings occur in state waters and, despite closures in Federal water in recent years, recreational landings have exceeded the recreational annual catch limit (ACL) and the combined stock ACL. This has resulted in shortened fishing seasons, which have been ineffective at constraining harvest. Following overages of the recreational and combined stock ACLs in 2015 and 2016, Federal waters closures for recreational harvest occurred in both 2016 (June 20) and 2017 (January 24). Additionally, Federal waters were closed to commercial harvest of Atlantic cobia in 2016 (December 5) and 2017 (September 4), because the commercial ACL was projected to be reached during the fishing year.
Allowable harvest in state waters following the Federal closures varied by time and area. Georgia did not close state waters to recreational harvest of Atlantic cobia in 2016 or 2017. South Carolina allowed harvest in 2016 during May in the Southern Cobia Management Zone and closed state waters in 2017 when Federal waters closed. Most harvest of Atlantic cobia off Georgia and South Carolina occurs in Federal waters. Off North Carolina, recreational harvest of Atlantic cobia closed on September 30, 2016; in 2017, harvest was allowed May 1 through August 31. Off Virginia in 2016, harvest was allowed until August 30, 2016, and in 2017, Virginia allowed harvest June 1 through September 15. Harvest in state waters during the Federal closures contributed to the overage of the recreational ACL and the combined stock ACL.
The South Atlantic Council requested that the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) consider complementary management measures for Atlantic cobia, as constraining harvest in Federal waters has not prevented the recreational and combined ACLs from being exceeded. The ASMFC consists of 15 Atlantic coastal states that manage and conserve their shared coastal fishery resources. The majority of ASMFC's fisheries decision-making occurs through the Interstate Fisheries Management Program, where species management boards determine management strategies that the states implement through fishing regulations.
In May 2016, the ASMFC started developing an interstate FMP for Atlantic cobia with the purpose to
The management measures contained within the ASMFC's Interstate FMP are consistent with the current Federal regulations for Atlantic cobia. For the recreational sector, the management measures in the Interstate FMP include a recreational bag and possession limit of one fish per person, not to exceed six fish per vessel per day, and a minimum size limit of 36 inches (91.4 cm), fork length. For the commercial sector, the management measures in the Interstate FMP include a commercial possession limit of two cobia per person, not to exceed six fish per vessel, and a minimum size limit of 33 inches (83.8 cm), fork length. Under the ASMFC plan, regulations in each state must match, or be more restrictive than, the Interstate FMP management measures. Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia have implemented more restrictive regulations for the recreational sector in their state waters than specified in the Interstate FMP. Those regulations include recreational bag and vessel limits, and minimum size limits, in addition to allowable fishing seasons. The Interstate FMP also provides the opportunity for states to declare
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires a council to prepare an FMP for each fishery under its authority that requires conservation and management. Any stocks that are predominately caught in Federal waters and are overfished or subject to overfishing, or likely to become overfished or subject to overfishing, are considered to require conservation and management (50 CFR 600.305(c)(1)). Beyond such stocks, councils may determine that additional stocks require conservation and management. However, not every fishery requires Federal management and the NMFS National Standard Guidelines at 50 CFR 600.305(c) provide factors that NMFS and the councils should consider when considering removal of a stock from a FMP. This analysis is contained in Amendment 31.
Based on this analysis, the Councils and NMFS have determined that Atlantic cobia is no longer in need of conservation and management within the South Atlantic Council's jurisdiction and the stock is eligible for removal from the CMP FMP. The majority of Atlantic group cobia landings are in state waters and the stock is not overfished or undergoing overfishing. However, the CMP FMP has proven ineffective at resolving the primary ongoing user conflict between the recreational fishermen from different states, and it does not currently appear to be capable of promoting a more efficient utilization of the resource. Most significantly, the harvest of Atlantic cobia is adequately managed in state waters by the ASMFC and their Interstate FMP, which was implemented in April 2018. Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia have implemented more restrictive recreational regulations than those specified in the Insterstate FMP. Furthermore, the Interstate FMP requires that if a state's average annual landings over the 3-year time period are greater than their annual harvest target, then that state must adjust their recreational season length or recreational vessel limits for the following 3 years, as necessary, to prevent exceeding their harvest target in the future years. For the commercial sector, the ASMFC's Interstate FMP specified management measures for Atlantic cobia that are consistent with the current ACL and AM specified in the Federal regulations implemented pursuant to the CMP FMP.
Therefore, NMFS and the Councils have determined that management of Atlantic cobia by the states, in conjunction with the ASMFC and Secretary of Commerce, will be more effective at constraining harvest and preventing overfishing; thereby, offering greater biological protection to the stock and decreasing adverse socioeconomic effects to fishermen. Further, management of Atlantic cobia by ASMFC is expected to promote a more equitable distribution of harvest of the species among the states.
Amendment 31 would remove Atlantic cobia from Federal management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. At the same time, NMFS would implement comparable regulations under the Atlantic Coastal Act to replace the existing Magnuson-Stevens Act based regulations in Federal waters.
Current commercial management measures for Atlantic cobia include a minimum size limit of 33 inches (83.8 cm), fork length and a commercial trip limit of two fish per person per day, not to exceed six fish per vessel per day. Federal regulations for recreational harvest of Atlantic cobia in Federal waters include a minimum size limit of 36 inches (91.4 cm), fork length and a bag and possession of one fish per person per day, not to exceed six fish per vessel per day.
Under the authority of the Atlantic Coastal Act, NMFS would implement these same minimum size limits, recreational bag and possession limits, and commercial trip limits in Federal waters. Additionally, NMFS would implement regulations consistent with current CMP FMP regulations for the fishing year, general prohibitions, authorized gear, and landing fish intact provisions specific to Atlantic cobia.
The current Atlantic cobia commercial ACL is 50,000 lb (22,680 kg) and the recreational ACL is 620,000 lb (281,227 kg). The proposed removal of Atlantic cobia from Federal management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act would remove these sector ACLs. Thus, NMFS would implement a commercial quota of 50,000 lb (22,280 kg) through the Atlantic Coastal Act consistent with the current commercial ACL. The current commercial accountability measure (AM) requires that if commercial landings reach or are projected to reach the ACL, then commercial harvest will be prohibited for the remainder of the fishing year. NMFS would implement commercial quota closure provisions to prohibit commercial harvest once the commercial quota is reached or projected to be reached.
The ASMFC's Interstate FMP has specified a recreational harvest limit (RHL) of 613,800 lb (278,415 kg) in state and Federal waters and state-by-state recreational quota shares (harvest targets) of the coastwide RHL. During the development of the Insterstate FMP, one percent of the amount of the recreational allocation of the current Federal ACL (initially 6,200 lb (2,812
The proposed removal of Atlantic cobia from Federal management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act would remove the recreational sector AM for Atlantic cobia. The recreational AM requires that both the recreational ACL and the stock ACL are exceeded in a fishing year then in the following fishing year, recreational landings will be monitored for a persistence in increased landings, and, if necessary, the recreational vessel limit will be reduced to no less than 2 fish per vessel to ensure recreational landings achieve the recreational annual catch target, but do not exceed the recreational ACL in that fishing year. Additionally, if the reduction in the recreational vessel limit is determined to be insufficient to ensure that recreational landings will not exceed the recreational ACL, then the length of the recreational fishing season will also be reduced.
In place of the current recreational AM, state-defined regulations and seasons implemented consistent with the ASMFC's Interstate FMP are designed to keep harvest within the state harvest targets. If a state's average annual landings over the 3-year time period are greater than their annual harvest target, then the Insterstate FMP requires the state to adjust their recreational season length or recreational vessel limits for the following 3 years, as necessary, to prevent exceeding their harvest target in the future years.
If Amendment 31 is subsequently approved and implemented, Atlantic cobia would be managed under the ASMFC Interstate FMP in state waters and through Atlantic Coastal Act regulations in Federal waters. This will ensure that Atlantic cobia continues to be managed in Federal waters and that there would be no lapse in management of the stock. These regulations would be expected to be implemented concurrently with the removal of Atlantic cobia from the CMP FMP and serve essentially the same function as the current CMP FMP based management measures.
A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 31 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the CMP FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the
The Councils have submitted Amendment 31 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments on Amendment 31 must be received by December 10, 2018. Comments received during the respective comment periods, whether specifically directed to Amendment 31 or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in the decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 31. Comments received after the comment periods will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on Amendment 31 or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
Pursuant to the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018 and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), NMFS is proposing a Traceability Information Program for Seafood to establish registration, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for U.S. aquaculture producers of shrimp and abalone, two species subject to the Seafood Traceability Program, also known as the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP). This proposed rule, if finalized, would provide traceability for these species from the point of production to entry into U.S. commerce. Collection of traceability information for U.S. aquacultured shrimp and abalone will be accomplished by electronic submission of data to NMFS. This rule would require owners or operators of U.S. inland, coastal and marine commercial aquaculture facilities (“producers”) to report information about production and entry into U.S. commerce of shrimp and abalone products. In addition, this rule would require producers to register with NMFS and retain records pertaining to the production of shrimp and abalone and entry of those products into U.S. commerce. This proposed rule serves as a domestic counterpart to the shrimp and abalone import requirements under SIMP, and will help NMFS verify that U.S. aquacultured shrimp and abalone were lawfully produced by providing information to trace each production event(s) to entry of the fish or fish products into U.S. commerce. The rule will also decrease the incidence of seafood fraud by requiring the reporting of this information to the U.S. Government at the point of entry into U.S. commerce so that the information reported (
Written comments must be received by November 26, 2018.
Written comments on this action, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0055, may be submitted by either of the following methods:
•
•
NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Enter N/A in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable document file (PDF) formats only.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to the NOAA Fisheries Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection (IASI) and by email to:
Celeste Leroux at (301) 427-8372 or
On March 15, 2015, the Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing and Seafood Fraud (Task Force), co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and State, published its action plan to implement Task Force recommendations for a comprehensive framework of integrated programs to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. As part of implementing the Task Force plan, NMFS issued a final rule (81 FR 88975, December 9, 2016) for a risk-based traceability program to track seafood from production to entry into U.S. commerce known as the Seafood Traceability Program or Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP) (
In the SIMP final rule, NMFS explained that when the domestic reporting and recordkeeping gaps have been closed, NMFS will then publish an action in the
On March 23, 2018, the President signed into law the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018 (2018 Appropriations Act) (Pub. L. 115-141, Div. B). Section 539 of the Act directs the Secretary of Commerce to lift the stay on the effective date of the SIMP final rule for shrimp and abalone species and establish a compliance date not later than December 31, 2018. On April 24, 2018, NMFS published a final rule lifting that stay, and established a compliance date of December 31, 2018 for imports of shrimp and abalone (83 FR 17762).
In addition to the requirement to include shrimp and abalone species under SIMP, section 539 of the 2018 Appropriations Act directed the Secretary of Commerce to “. . . establish a traceability program for United States inland, coastal, and marine aquaculture of shrimp and abalone . . .” and by December 31, 2018 to “. . . promulgate such regulations as are necessary and appropriate to establish and implement the program.”
This proposed Traceability Information Program for Seafood (Program) would establish registration, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for domestic, commercial aquaculture producers of shrimp and abalone species and products containing those species from the point of production to entry into U.S. commerce. A producer,
Section 539 further directs that information collected pursuant to a regulation promulgated under this section shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed except for the information disclosed under section 401(b)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1881a(b)(1). Section 1881a(b)(1) corresponds to MSA section 402(b)(1). Thus, NMFS believes that the reference to MSA section 401(b)(1) is a typographical error and the intent of Congress was to cite to MSA section 402(b)(1). MSA section 401(b)(1) pertains to fishing vessel registration, whereas 402(b)(1) addresses data confidentiality which lends further support to the notion that Congress intended to cite to section 402(b)(1). Accordingly, NMFS will apply the data confidentiality provisions of MSA section 402(b)(1) to the data required to be submitted under this proposed Program.
The proposed Traceability Information Program for Seafood consists of three components: (1) Registration; (2) monthly reporting of production events; and (3) recordkeeping requirements with respect to both production events and chain of custody information from production to the point of entry into U.S. commerce via sale or non-sale transaction (including transfers between components of a vertically-integrated enterprise). Application of the Program's reporting and recordkeeping requirements would enable NMFS to determine the origin of the domestic aquaculture shrimp and abalone products and confirm that they were lawfully produced and not misrepresented. Coextensive with the scope of SIMP, the Traceability Information Program for Seafood traces fish and fish products from production to entry into U.S. commerce. Fish or fish products regulated under the Traceability Information Program for Seafood are shrimp and abalone species produced by an aquaculture facility and products containing those aquacultured species. Section 698.2 defines fish or fish products regulated under this part, “produce/production,” and “entry into U.S. commerce.”
In § 698.4, NMFS proposes to identify aquaculture producers (
NMFS is proposing $1,000 as the
A producer who is required to register only needs one registration identifier. If the producer provides a valid and unique registration identifier for its aquaculture facility that is currently in use by another State or federal agency, NMFS may approve the use of that alternative identifier, provided that NMFS can independently verify the identity of the producer. NOAA seeks public comment on whether identifiers assigned under other programs, such as the Data Universal Numbering System (DUNs), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Registration of Food Facilities, or a similar State or federal facility registration, could be used for this purpose, and whether such an approach would reduce the burden of registration on industry.
In addition to the requirements in this proposed rule, for some species or products, permits from other federal or State agencies may be required (
The electronic reporting system to be established by NMFS will consist of two parts. The first will be a publicly accessible registration page where producers (an aquaculture facility owner or operator) will provide basic information to identify their business:
Once a producer identifier has been designated via the NMFS system, the producer can obtain login credentials to access the second part—a data entry portal that will require a unique login for each user. After logging into this site, the user will be able to report the required data elements as described in section III below, Data for Reporting and Recordkeeping.
Section 698.4(c) sets out a registration renewal requirement. As explained below, this rule requires that the producer, or representative acting on its behalf, submit reports to NMFS via an electronic reporting system at monthly intervals. If a producer has no reportable production events for an entire 12-month period, the producer must so certify through the electronic registration and reporting system established by NMFS in order to renew the producer's registration. Producers that have submitted monthly reports would need to certify that all applicable entries have been reported. Annually, all producers would need to confirm their identifying business information in order to renew their registration. Once the producer has submitted all required certifications, registration renewals would be automatic and at no additional cost to the producer. If the registration lapses, the producer would have to re-register and pay the cost-recovery fee.
The data reporting and recordkeeping requirements under this rule would be in addition to any reporting and recordkeeping required by States or other federal agencies. To align this proposed Program with the SIMP data reporting requirements, NMFS proposes, in § 698.5, that producers required to register under the Traceability Information Program for Seafood would be required to report information for each entry into U.S. commerce of fish or fish products regulated under the Traceability Information Program for Seafood that are intended for human consumption. As outlined in § 698.5(b), producers would submit reports through NMFS's electronic registration and reporting system and reports would include:
• Identifying the aquaculture facility producing the fish or fish products by providing a current, valid producer identifier.
• Information on the fish or fish products produced: 3-alpha Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Information System (ASFIS) code; Product weight and form (whole, head removed, etc.) at point of production and at point of entry into U.S. commerce.
• Information on where and when the fish were produced: Location of aquaculture facility; Date of production (
• Name of entity(ies) (processor, dealer, retailer) to which fish was sold or delivered. For direct sales, the producer would need to report information under the first three bullets above. The producer would not need to report information about the consumer, just describe where the fish was sold (
NMFS proposes that at monthly intervals producers would be required to report information for each entry into U.S. commerce of fish or fish products intended for human consumption from the previous month. For example, a producer would be required to report each applicable entry occurring in the month of May on or before the last day of June. If no applicable entries occurred in a given month, no report to NMFS is required. However, if a producer has no reportable production events for an entire 12-month period, the producer must certify that through the electronic reporting system established by NMFS in order to renew its registration. See Registration Renewal section above.
In designing the reporting requirements for the Traceability Information Program for Seafood, NMFS reviewed the temporal span of harvests that contribute to an entry subject to SIMP requirements and found that the temporal span for most entries was a month or less. Thus, NMFS is proposing monthly reporting for the Traceability Information Program for Seafood which provides a similar reporting burden when compared to the SIMP and contributes to the objective of the rule. NMFS seeks comment on whether producers would have production to report every month and whether the monthly reporting frequency for domestic producers is, in fact, comparable to the temporal aggregation of harvests required under the SIMP.
Producers would also be required to keep supporting documentation for the reports that are sufficient to trace the fish or fish product from the point of production (
NMFS proposes to mirror the requirements of this Program such that its requirements are equivalent to those that apply to imports of shrimp and abalone under SIMP. Thus, production of shrimp and abalone species not intended for human consumption (
To implement this regulation, business rules will be programmed into the electronic registration and reporting system established by NMFS to automatically validate that the producer has populated all data fields in conformance with format specifications. Absent this validation, the report submission would be rejected and the producer would be notified of the deficiencies that must be addressed in order for the report to be accepted.
Reports may also be subject to random or targeted audit by NMFS, as provided in § 698.6(b), in order to verify that the supplied data elements are true, can be corroborated (
In addition to the registration, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements of this proposed rule, several States have specific regulations applicable to aquaculture operations, typically including requirements on permitting, certification, and registration. Table 1 contains information, by State, on existing regulations relevant to traceability. To the extent practicable, and subject to applicable data confidentiality laws, NMFS will work to minimize duplicative requirements. For example, proposed § 698.4(b) provides that NMFS may approve the use of an alternative producer identifier obtained through other Federal or State programs.
State and federal regulations applicable to aquaculture operations are not affected by this rule, thus proposed § 698.3 provides that the registration, reporting and recordkeeping requirements under the Traceability Information Program for Seafood do not supersede any requirements established under any other federal or State law.
NOAA seeks public comment on Table 1, including information on additional, existing registration and reporting requirements and mechanisms that might assign unique, alternate producer identifiers referenced in § 698.4(b) that could be recognized by NMFS for purposes of the Traceability Information Program for Seafood.
NMFS will hold public meetings to discuss implementation of the Traceability Information Program for Seafood and address questions from participants. Information on future Program implementation meetings and transcripts of prior meetings and webinars can be found at
NMFS encourages stakeholders who may be affected by this rule, if implemented as proposed, to participate in the public meetings and to submit written comments (
the assumption that the $1000 annual value threshold as a
the assumption that the registration/reporting system, if operated at cost of $30 per registrant, is not a significant business cost and, if the cost varies depending on final system costs and number of users, what threshold fee would constitute a significant cost;
whether the proposed recordkeeping period of 2 years is inconsistent with other State or federal requirements applicable to businesses affected by the Program; and,
whether the Program overlaps with State recordkeeping and reporting programs, especially for abalone producers in California and Hawaii.
This proposed rule is published under the authority of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018, Public Law 115-141, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed action is consistent with the provisions of these and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. NMFS has prepared a regulatory impact review of this action, which is available from NMFS (
NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this proposed rule, as required by section 603 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 603. The IRFA describes the economic impact that this proposed rule, if implemented, would have on small entities. A description of the proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the objectives of, and legal basis for this proposed rule are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the
For U.S. commercial aquaculture producers of shrimp and abalone for human consumption, this proposed rule would create a mandatory registration, reporting and recordkeeping program. NMFS anticipates that U.S. entities will not have any significant adverse economic effects as a result of this action, because it does not pose any significant new burdens with regard to existing reporting and recordkeeping requirements or business practices. NMFS believes the recordkeeping and reporting costs are accounted for in earlier U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory actions, which contain more extensive recordkeeping requirements. See FDA Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act (Bioterrorism Act) final rule, Table 23, 69 FR 71562 at 71646 and Table 26 at 71650 (Dec. 9, 2004); Food Safety Modernization Act regulations (21 CFR 1.361); and Seafood Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) regulations (21 CFR part 123). NMFS seeks comment on whether there could be economic impacts that have not been evaluated in the supporting analyses of this proposed rule, or that could be difficult to anticipate.
NMFS proposes this action to comply with the 2018 Appropriations Act and to collect or have access to additional data on domestic aquaculture shrimp and abalone products to determine whether they have been lawfully produced and are accurately represented, to deter illegally-produced or misrepresented seafood from entering into U.S. commerce, and as a domestic counterpart to the shrimp and abalone species import requirements under the Seafood Import Monitoring Program. These data reporting and recordkeeping requirements affect producers of aquacultured shrimp and abalone products, many of which are small businesses that commercially produce for entry into U.S. commerce products valued at $1,000 or more per year. The registration, electronic reporting and recordkeeping requirements proposed by this rulemaking would build on current business practices (
The proposed rule, if implemented, will directly affect entities engaged in aquaculture of shrimp and abalone within the scope of the Traceability Information Program for Seafood. The Small Business Administration has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States including aquaculture operations. A business involved in aquaculture is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $0.75 million North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 112512 Shellfish Farming, 112519 Other Aquaculture, and 112511 finfish farming and fish hatcheries) for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
Based on the United States Department of Agriculture Census of Agriculture, Census of Aquaculture 2013 and the Bureau of Labor and Statistics' 2017 mean hourly wage for bookkeeping, NMFS has estimated that this rule would potentially affect 66 producers, requiring each to make a maximum of 12 reports annually ($19.76/hour at 0.5 hours per report) to NMFS on production of the species subject to the Traceability Information Program for Seafood. Total maximum costs for registration and renewal, data entry, recordkeeping and data storage per registrant are estimated by NMFS to amount to $150.21 (includes $30.00 registration fee and registration labor cost) in the first year, and $118.56 annually thereafter.
This rule has been developed to avoid duplication or conflict with any other federal rules. To the extent that the requirements of the rule overlap with other reporting requirements applicable to the designated species, this has been taken into account to avoid collecting data more than once. Given the fact that traceability systems are being increasingly used within the seafood industry, it is not expected that this rule will significantly affect the overall volume of trade or alter trade flows in the U.S. market for fish and fish products that are legally produced and accurately represented.
Based on limited financial information available to NMFS about the affected entities, NMFS believes that most affected producers of shrimp are small entities as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA); that is, they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their fields of operation, and have annual receipts of no more than $0.75 million. NMFS believes there are a few producers of abalone that would be considered large entities. While there are a few large entities, the one-time registration fee and cost of reporting are low (maximum annual cost of $150.21). Therefore, NMFS has determined that this proposed rule would affect a substantial number of small entities; however, the issue of disproportionate effects on small versus large entities does not arise in the present case.
With regard to the possible economic effects of this action, NMFS believes that small entities will not be significantly adversely affected by this action because it does not directly restrict production or trade in the designated species and does not pose entirely new burdens with regard to the collection and submission of information necessary to comply with the monitoring program. While this rule
NMFS considered two regulatory action alternatives in this rulemaking as well as a no-action alternative: NMFS considered requiring registration for all shrimp and abalone aquaculture producers, including those who sell under $1,000 per year of these species, but determined that producers of such small amounts of shrimp and abalone can be exempted from the Program without impacting its overall integrity. Also, there is no verifiable data on firms under the $1,000 threshold. The $1,000 threshold was chosen because it matches the U.S. Department of Agriculture minimum sales threshold for reporting under the Census of Agriculture. NMFS also considered requiring reporting of all shrimp and abalone production regardless of its intended use, but determined this was not necessary as the selection of certain Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes for inclusion under SIMP limits the scope of SIMP to just those seafood products intended for human consumption and excludes products not intended for human consumption. Recognizing that $1,000 in sales per year may result in the inclusion of facilities not selling meaningful quantities of shrimp and abalone into U.S. commerce, NMFS may finalize a higher threshold. NMFS seeks comment on a threshold that both satisfies the requirements of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018, while also minimizing burden on the smallest producers.
In light of the information on total annual compliance cost described above, NMFS believes the rule, if implemented will not reduce profits for a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, NMFS believes the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, however, we seek public comment on this analysis. NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to describe the economic impact this proposed rule would have on small entities. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (
This proposed rule contains a new collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. The information collection burden for the requirements proposed under this rule (
Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the appropriateness of monthly reporting for achieving stated objectives; the accuracy of the assumptions used in calculating the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to the NOAA Fisheries Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection at the
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Fisheries, Statistics, Aquaculture, Reporting and recordkeeping.
Pub. L. 115-141, Div. B, section 539; 16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) This part implements a Traceability Information Program for Seafood from the point of production to entry into U.S. commerce pursuant to the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018, section 539 (Pub. L. 115-141, Div. B) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).
(b) This Program establishes registration, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for U.S. inland, coastal, and marine aquaculture facilities that produce shrimp and abalone and complements the Seafood Traceability Program established in § 300.324 of this title.
(c) The scope of the Program is limited to U.S. commercial aquaculture facilities that produce shrimp and abalone for human consumption for entry into U.S. commerce.
(d) Production of fish and fish products regulated under this part not intended for human consumption, including production intended for research, broodstock, or post-larval grow out, is outside the scope of the Program.
In addition to the terms defined in § 600.10 of this title, and in the MSA, the following definitions apply to this part. If a term is defined differently in § 600.10, or in the MSA, the definition in this section shall apply.
Registration, reporting and recordkeeping requirements under the Traceability Information Program for Seafood do not supersede any requirements established under any other federal or State law.
(a) The producer of fish or fish products regulated under this part must register the aquaculture facility through the NMFS Traceability Information Program for Seafood electronic registration and reporting system. Such registration is valid for a period of one year and must be renewed annually. The electronic registration and reporting system will assign a unique producer identifier. Producers must notify NMFS within 30 days of any change in their information submitted to or used in the electronic registration and reporting system (
(b)
(c)
(d)
A producer that is required to be registered under § 698.4 must report information regarding all entries into U.S. commerce of fish or fish products regulated under this part.
(a)
(b)
(a) Recordkeeping. The producer must maintain a paper or electronic copy of any report required under § 698.5 and supporting documentation for the report sufficient to trace the fish or fish product from point of production to entry into U.S. commerce. Records may include widely used commercial documents (
(b)
(c)
All information and records required to be submitted under this part shall be subject to the Magnuson-Stevens Act confidentiality provisions and shall not be disclosed except as provided under section 402(b)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and part 600, subpart E of this title.
In addition to the general prohibitions listed at § 600.725 of this title, it is unlawful for any person to do any of the following:
(a) Violate any of the registration, reporting or recordkeeping provisions of this part.
(b) Sell, offer for sale, or attempt to sell or offer for sale, fish or fish products regulated under this part that were produced by an aquaculture facility that has failed to register as required under § 698.4.
(c) Dispose of fish or fish products regulated under this part, or any reports or supporting documentation required to be retained under § 698.6(a), after any communication from an authorized officer that the aquaculture facility, or such reports or supporting documentation, are to be inspected.
(d) Make any false statement, oral or written, to an authorized officer concerning the production, purchase, sale, offer for sale, receipt, acquisition, possession, transport or transfer of any fish or fish products regulated under this part, or any attempt to do any of the above.
(e) Provide false, incomplete or inaccurate information in the registration required under § 698.4 or reports required under § 698.5 or falsify any reports or supporting documentation required to be retained under § 698.6.
(f) Fail to make reports or supporting documentation available for inspection, as required under § 698.6(c).
(g) Fail to make available, or otherwise produce, reports and supporting documentation to support an audit, as required under § 698.6(b).
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Tennessee Advisory Committee will hold meetings on Wednesday, November 7, 2018, and Wednesday, December 5, 2018, at 12:30 p.m. EST. The purpose of the meetings is to prepare the panelist list and logistics for a public meeting to hear testimony on legal financial obligations and civil rights issues.
The meetings will be held on Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 12:30 p.m. EST, and Wednesday, December 5, 2018, at 12:30 p.m. EST.
Jeff Hinton, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number conference id numbers listed. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meetings. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Program Unit Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 S Dearborn, Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324 or may be emailed to Jeff Hinton at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines to rescind this administrative review, as there is no evidence of any reviewable entries, shipments, or sales of certain magnesia carbon bricks (magnesia carbon bricks) from the People's Republic of China (China) to the United States during the September 1, 2016, through August 31, 2017, period of review (POR) by the companies subject to this review. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable October 11, 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 November 13, 2017, Commerce published in the
The scope of the order includes certain chemically-bonded magnesia carbon bricks from China. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff
Based on information submitted after the initiation of this administrative review, and due to the fact that we have not received any information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) indicating that the companies subject to this review had reviewable entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, Commerce preliminarily determines that the record evidence indicates that no company subject to this review had reviewable entries during the POR.
Case briefs must be submitted to Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) at a date to be determined by Commerce, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline for the submission for case briefs.
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, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically through ACCESS, within 30 days after the publication of this notice. Hearing requests should contain the party's name, address, telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues parties intend to present at the hearing. 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 time to be determined. Prior to the hearing, Commerce will contact all parties who submitted case or rebuttal briefs to determine if they wish to participate in the hearing. Commerce will then distribute a hearing schedule to these parties prior to the hearing, and only those parties listed on the hearing schedule may present issues raised in their briefs.
All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using ACCESS.
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs, within 120 days of the publication of these preliminary results or review, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
We intend to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of the final rescission (or, should we find that the companies subject to this review had reviewable entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, the final results) of this administrative review.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that laminated woven sacks (LWS) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) for the period of investigation (POI) July 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Drew Jackson or Celeste Chen, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4406 or (202) 482-0890, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation
The products covered by this investigation are LWS from Vietnam. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Because Vietnam is a non-market economy country, within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, Commerce has calculated normal value (NV) in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. Furthermore, Commerce preliminarily has denied a separate rate to mandatory respondent Xinsheng Plastic Industry Co., Ltd., which failed to respondent to certain supplemental questionnaires. For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's preliminary determination,
In the
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In
To determine the cash deposit rate, Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the amount of domestic subsidy pass-through and export subsidies determined in a companion CVD proceeding when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce has made a preliminary affirmative determination for domestic subsidy pass-through or export subsidies, Commerce has offset the calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate rate(s). Any such adjusted rates may be found in the Preliminary Determination Section's table of estimated weighted-average dumping margins above.
Should provisional measures in the companion CVD investigation expire prior to the expiration of provisional measures in this LTFV investigation, Commerce will direct CBP to begin collecting cash deposits at a rate equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins calculated in this preliminary determination unadjusted for the passed-through domestic subsidies or for export subsidies at the time the CVD provisional measures expire.
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify information relied upon in making its final determination.
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 final verification report is issued in this investigation, unless the Secretary alters the time limit. 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. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of the subject merchandise are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is laminated woven sacks. Laminated woven sacks are bags consisting of one or more plies of fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, regardless of the width of the strip; with or without an extrusion coating of polypropylene and/or polyethylene on one or both sides of the fabric; laminated by any method either to an exterior ply of plastic film such as biaxially-oriented polypropylene (BOPP), polyester (PET), polyethylene (PE), nylon, or any film suitable for printing, or to an exterior ply of paper; printed; displaying, containing, or comprising three or more visible colors (
The scope of this investigation excludes laminated woven sacks having each of the following physical characteristics: (1) No side greater than 24 inches, (2) weight less than 100 grams, (3) an open top that is neither sealable nor closable, the rim of which is hemmed or sewn around the entire circumference, (4) carry handles sewn on the open end, (5) side gussets, and (6) either a bottom gusset or a square or rectangular bottom. The excluded items with the above-mentioned physical characteristics may be referred to as reusable shopping bags.
Subject laminated woven sacks are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 6305.33.0040 and 6305.33.0080. If entered with plastic coating on both sides of the fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 3923.21.0080, 3923.21.0095, and 3923.29.0000. If entered not closed on one end or in roll form (including, but not limited to, sheets, lay-flat tubing, and sleeves), laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings, including 3917.39.0050, 3921.90.1100, 3921.90.1500, and 5903.90.2500. If the polypropylene strips and/or polyethylene strips making up the fabric measure more than 5 millimeters in width, laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings including 4601.99.0500,4601.99.9000, and 4602.90.0000. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd. (Zhongwei), an exporter of certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (OTR tires) from the People's Republic of China (China), sold merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) September 1, 2016, through August 31, 2017. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable: October 11, 2018.
Keith Haynes, 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) 482-5139.
On September 1, 2017, Commerce published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on OTR tires from China for the period of September 1, 2016, through August 31, 2017.
The merchandise covered by this order includes new pneumatic tires designed for off-the-road and off-highway use, subject to certain exceptions. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4011.20.10.25, 4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30, 4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00, 4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00, 4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00, 4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00, 4011.94.40.00, and 4011.94.80.00. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written product description of the scope of the order is dispositive. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) and 751(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Because China is a non-market economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, NV has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
Commerce preliminarily determines that information placed on the record by the sole respondent, Zhongwei, indicates that it is eligible to receive a separate rate and has made sales in the United States during the POR at prices below NV. For additional information,
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of all issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For Zhongwei, Commerce will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). For customers or importers of Zhongwei for which we do not have entered values, we calculated importer- (or customer-) specific antidumping duty assessment amounts based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping duties calculated for the examined sales of subject merchandise to the total sales quantity of those same sales.
For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by an exporter individually examined during this review, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the China-wide rate. Additionally, if Commerce determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number will be liquidated at the China-wide rate.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies listed above that have a separate rate (
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain producers and exporters of oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR) January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Aimee Phelan, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0697.
On September 1, 2017, Commerce published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the CVD order on OCTG from Turkey for the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
The merchandise covered by the order is certain OCTG, which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (
We are conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we preliminarily find that there is a subsidy,
We preliminarily determine the following net countervailable subsidy rate for the mandatory respondent, Borusan, for the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016:
Consistent with
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount shown above for Borusan, with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most recent company specific or all-others rate applicable to the company. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
We will disclose to parties in this review the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of publication of these preliminary results.
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 by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
These preliminary results and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. (NEXTEEL) and SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH) sold certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) in the United States at prices below normal value during the period of review (POR) September 1, 2016, through August 31, 2017. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable: October 11, 2018.
Mike Heaney or Erin Kearney, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4475 or (202) 482-0167, respectively.
We published the initiation of this administrative review on November 13, 2017.
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). Access to ACCESS is available to registered users at
The merchandise covered by the order is certain OCTG, which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price and constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our
Among the companies under review, Samsung, Samsung C and T Corporation (Samsung C&T), and SeAH Besteel Corporation (SeAH Besteel) properly filed certifications reporting that they had no exports, sales, or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
In this review, we have preliminarily calculated weighted-average dumping margins for NEXTEEL and SeAH that are not zero,
Commerce preliminarily determines that, for the period September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2017, the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results of review to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
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
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any case or rebuttal briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless extended.
Upon completion of this administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by NEXTEEL or SeAH for which the producer did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, or for any respondent for which we have a final determination of no shipments, 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.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies listed in the final results of review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which they were reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 5.24 percent,
This notice serves as a preliminary 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 POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
Commerce is 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) preliminarily determines to rescind this administrative review as there is no evidence of any reviewable entries, shipments, or sales of certain magnesia carbon bricks (magnesia carbon bricks) from the People's Republic of China (China) to the United States during the January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, period of review (POR) by the companies subject
Applicable: October 11, 2018.
Gene H. Calvert, 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) 482-3586.
On November 13, 2017, Commerce published in the
The scope of the order includes certain chemically-bonded magnesia carbon bricks from China. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Preliminary Decision Memorandum contains a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions and is a public document on file electronically
Based on information submitted after the initiation of this administrative review, and due to the fact that we have not received any information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) indicating that the companies subject to this review had reviewable entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, Commerce preliminarily determines that the record evidence indicates that no company subject to this review had reviewable entries during the POR.
Case briefs must be submitted to Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) at a date to be determined by Commerce, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline for the submission for case briefs.
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, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically through ACCESS, within 30 days after the publication of this notice. Hearing requests should contain the party's name, address, telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues parties intend to present at the hearing. 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 time to be determined. Prior to the hearing, Commerce will contact all parties who submitted case or rebuttal briefs to determine if they wish to participate in the hearing. Commerce will then distribute a hearing schedule to these parties prior to the hearing, and only those parties listed on the hearing schedule may present issues raised in their briefs.
All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using ACCESS.
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs, within 120 days of the publication of these preliminary results or review, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
We intend to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of the final rescission (or, should we find that the companies subject to this review had reviewable entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, the final results) of this administrative review.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(I) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd. (Hyundai Steel), a producer/exporter of certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from the Republic of Korea (Korea), and POSCO, a producer/exporter of cold-rolled from Korea, received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR), July 29, 2016, through December 31, 2016. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Yasmin Bordas or Tyler Weinhold, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3813 and (202) 482-1121, respectively.
On November 13, 2017, Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on cold-rolled steel from Korea.
The merchandise covered by the order is certain cold-rolled steel flat products. For a complete description of the scope of the order,
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(l)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy,
For the companies not selected for individual review, because the rates calculated for Hyundai Steel and POSCO were above
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b)(4)(i), we calculated individual subsidy rates for Hyundai Steel and POSCO. For the period July 29, 2016, through December 31, 2016, we preliminarily determine that the net subsidy rates for the producers/exporters under review to be as follows:
Consistent with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount indicated above with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent
We will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must do so within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results by submitting a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system.
Parties are reminded that all briefs and hearing requests must be filed electronically using ACCESS and received successfully in their entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after publication of these preliminary results.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Joint Scallop Advisory Panel and Plan Development Team to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 100 Boardman Street, Boston, MA 02128; phone: (617) 567-6789.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Scallop Advisory Panel and Plan Development Team will review Framework (FW) 30 alternatives and analyses. The primary focus of this meeting will be to provide input on the range of specification alternatives. FW 30 will set specifications including ABC/ACLs, days-at-sea, access area allocations, total allowable catch for the Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) management area, targets for General Category incidental catch, and set-asides for the observer and research programs for fishing year 2019 and default specifications for fishing year 2020. Management measures in FW 30 include: (1) Standard default measures. They also plan to review progress toward 2018 work items, make recommendations on 2019 scallop work priorities, and consider approaches for moving priorities forward. Other business may be discussed as necessary.
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 these meetings. 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 Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 58 Pre-Data Workshop Webinar for Atlantic Cobia.
The SEDAR 58 assessment of the Atlantic stock of Cobia will consist of a series of workshops and webinars: Data Workshop; Assessment Webinars; and a Review Workshop. See
The SEDAR 58 Pre-Data Workshop Webinar will be held on Thursday, October 25, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
The meetings 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 a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing 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 representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion at the Pre-Data Workshop webinar are as follows: Participants will continue to discuss data needs and treatments in order to prepare for the Data Workshop.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before December 10, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Kirsten Leong, (808) 725-5398 or
This request is for a new information collection.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to collect information, through interviews, about fisher behavior related to protected species interactions (such as avoidance, handling, and reporting) in the Hawai'i and American Samoa longline fisheries, in order to improve management in those fisheries; satisfy NFMS' legal mandates under Executive Order 12866, the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Management Act (U.S.C. 1801
Respondents will be interviewed in person.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Climate Program Office (CPO), Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of open meeting.
The National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) Program Office will hold an organizational meeting of the NIDIS Executive Council on November 1, 2018.
The meeting will be held Thursday, November 1, 2018 from 9 a.m. EST to 4 p.m. EST. These times and the agenda topics are subject to change.
The meeting will be held at the Hall of the States, Room 383/385, 444 North Capitol St. NW, Washington, DC 20001.
Veva Deheza, NIDIS Executive Director, David Skaggs Research Center, Room GD102, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305. Email:
The National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) was established by Public Law 109-430 on December 20, 2006, and reauthorized by Public Law 113-86 on March 6, 2014, with a mandate to provide an effective drought early warning system for the United States; coordinate, and integrate as practicable, Federal research in support of a drought early warning system; and build upon existing forecasting and assessment programs and partnerships.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice; extension of comment period.
On September 26, 2018, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce published a notice and request for public comments on ways to advance consumer privacy while protecting prosperity and innovation. Through this notice, NTIA is extending the deadline for comments from October 26, 2018, until November 9, 2018.
Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on November 9, 2018.
Written comments may be submitted by email to
Travis Hall, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 4725, Washington, DC 20230; Telephone: (202) 482-3522; Email:
On behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) published a notice seeking public comments on ways to advance consumer privacy while protecting prosperity and innovation.
Wednesday, October 17, 2018, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD.
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.
A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at
Rockelle Hammond, Office of the Secretariat, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-6833.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense.
Notice of two-year extension of TRICARE co-pay waiver at Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center demonstration project.
This notice is to advise interested parties of a two-year extension of a demonstration project entitled “TRICARE Co-Pay Waiver at Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center (FHCC) Demonstration Project.” The original waiver notice was published on September 27, 2010.
This two-year extension is effective from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2020.
Mr. Michael Bouchard, Director, DoD/VA Program Coordination Office, Defense Health Agency, Telephone 703-275-6300.
For additional information on the TRICARE co-pay waiver demonstration at the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center (FHCC) demonstration project, please see 75 FR 59237-59238. Under this demonstration, there would be no deductibles, cost shares, or co-pays for eligible beneficiaries seeking care at the FHCC, under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 1092(a)(1)(B). The original demonstration notice explained that the co-pay waiver demonstration would be used to determine if increased utilization at FHCC actually occurred as a result of eliminated co-payments, which would in turn influence decisions regarding financial integration at future Department of Defense (DoD)/Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) models of this nature. A report on the demonstration project concluded that utilization increased at FHCC during the time of the co-pay waiver demonstration project. Admission and encounter utilization data from 2010 to 2014 shows that DoD utilization of FHCC increased significantly. This demonstration is integral to the success of the integration effort at FHCC; without it, FHCC would see a marked reduction in DoD beneficiaries.
Under this demonstration, DoD has waived TRICARE co-payments for DoD beneficiaries seen at the FHCC. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year (FY) 2010 Section 1701 requires a report to Congress evaluating the exercise of authorities in that title at FHCC. That report was delivered on July 26, 2016, and recommends continuation of the FHCC demonstration project. Therefore, DoD submitted a legislative proposal to amend section 1705 of NDAA 2010 to clarify language that access to care under section 1705 should apply to the entire joint facility and not limited to the DoD assets within the facility. If approved, this amendment would be a permanent solution that will negate the requirement for further extensions to the TRICARE co-pay waiver demonstration project.
In order to allow seamless continuation of services to DoD beneficiaries at FHCC, the TRICARE co-pay waiver is also extended through September 30, 2020 to align with modification of language to FY 2010
An independent evaluation was performed and determined that without this waiver, DoD beneficiary utilization of the FHCC in North Chicago would have significantly decreased. Since DoD and VA have recommended to Congress to continue the demonstration project, DoD will continue to pursue a permanent solution regarding DoD beneficiary co-pays that will ensure DoD beneficiaries are not levied cost shares, as FHCC represents the former Naval Hospital Great Lakes.
The original notice for this meeting was published at 83 FR 50088 on October 4, 2018.
Tuesday, October 9, 2018, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
This meeting will now occur on October 23, 2018, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Glenn Sklar, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016. This is a toll-free number.
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 December 10, 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 Ian Foss, 202-377-3681.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 10, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please
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.
Office of Electricity, DOE.
Notice of application.
Guzman Energy LLC (Guzman Energy or Applicant) has applied for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico pursuant to the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before November 13, 2018.
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b) and 7172(f)), and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On September 27, 2018, DOE received an application from Guzman Energy for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities.
In its application, Guzman Energy states that it “does not own or operate an integrated transmission or distribution system” and “is not a franchised public utility with a transmission or distribution system and does not have captive customers.” The electric energy that Guzman Energy proposes to export to Mexico would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order No. 10,485, as amended by Executive Order No. 12,038, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Comments and other filings concerning Guzman Energy's application to export electric energy to Mexico should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-462. An additional copy is to be provided to both Robin Lunt, Guzman Energy LLC, 1125 17th Street, Suite 740, Denver, CO 80202 and Christopher Miller, 101 Aragon Avenue, Coral Gables, FL 33134.
A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program website at
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy.
Notice of intent To grant exclusive patent license.
The Department of Energy (DOE) hereby gives notice that DOE intends to grant an exclusive license to practice the invention described and claimed in U.S. Patent Number 7,746,979 titled “Methods for Assisting Recovery of Damaged Brain and Spinal Cord and Treating Various Diseases Using Arrays of X-Ray Microplanar Beams” to The Research Foundation for The State University of New York, a nonprofit, educational corporation existing under the laws of the State of New York, having its principal place of business at Stony Brook, New York. The patent is owned by United States of America, as represented by DOE.
Written comments, objections, or nonexclusive license applications must be received at the address listed no later than October 26, 2018.
Comments, applications for nonexclusive licenses, or objections relating to the prospective exclusive license should be submitted to Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property, U.S. Department of Energy, Room 6F-067, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585.
Marianne Lynch, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property, U.S. Department of Energy, Room 6F-067, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585; Email:
This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). 35 U.S.C. 209(c) gives DOE the authority to grant exclusive or partially exclusive licenses in federally-owned inventions where a determination is made, among other things, that the desired practical application of the invention has not been achieved, or is not likely to be achieved expeditiously, under a nonexclusive license. The statute and implementing regulations (37 CFR 404) require that the necessary determinations be made after public notice and opportunity for filing written comments and objections.
The Research Foundation for The State University of New York has applied for an exclusive license to practice the inventions embodied in the patent and has plans for commercialization of the inventions.
Within 15 days of publication of this notice, any person may submit in writing to DOE's General Counsel for Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer Office (see contact information), either of the following, together with supporting documents:
(i) A statement setting forth reasons why it would not be in the best interest of the United States to grant the proposed license; or (ii) An application for a nonexclusive license to the invention, in which applicant states that it already has brought the invention to practical application or is likely to bring the invention to practical application expeditiously.
The prospective exclusive license complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The proposed license would be exclusive, subject to a license and other rights retained by the United States, and subject to a negotiated royalty. DOE will review all timely written responses to this notice, and will grant the licenses if, after expiration of the 15-day notice period, and after consideration of any written responses to this notice, a determination is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c) that the licenses are in the public interest.
Take notice that on October 2, 2018, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act and Rules 206 and 212 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure,
Tradewind certifies that a copy of the Complaint were served on Southern and copies have been provided to the Florida Public Service Commission and the Georgia Public Service Commission.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible online at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, it must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l.
m.
n.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelters (EPA ICR No. 1850.08, OMB Control No. 2060-0476), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through October 31, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 13, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0067, to: (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of settlement.
Under 122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental
The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until November 13, 2018. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the proposed settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
Copies of the settlement are available from the Agency by contacting Ms. Paula V. Painter, Program Analyst, using the contact information provided in his notice. Comments may also be submitted by referencing the Site's name through one of the following methods:
•
•
Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Water Quality Standards Regulation (EPA ICR Number 0988.13, OMB Control Number 2040-0049), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This extension of the Water Quality Standards Regulation ICR (approved through June 30, 2019) also consolidates the burden and costs from two related ICRs: The Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions ICR (OMB Control Number 2040-0286, currently approved through December 31, 2018), and the Revised Interpretation of Clean Water Act Tribal Provision ICR (OMB Control Number 2040-0289, currently approved through July 31, 2019). Public comments on this ICR renewal and consolidation were requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 13, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0465, to (1) EPA online using
The EPA policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Tanyan Bailey, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Health Protection Division, (4305T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-3133; fax number: 202-566-0409; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
This ICR renews the WQS Regulation ICR, OMB Control Number 2040-0049, and consolidates the burden and costs associated with activities previously reported in the following two related ICRs: the WQS Regulatory Revisions ICR (OMB Control Number 2040-0286) and the Revised Interpretation of Clean Water Act Tribal Provision ICR (OMB Control Number 2040-0289) so that all WQS-related burden is covered by one ICR. Upon OMB approval, the remaining ICRs will be discontinued.
This ICR renewal and consolidation describes the estimated burden for states, authorized tribes and certain Great Lakes dischargers associated with the information collections related to: Implementation of the requirements of 40 CFR part 131 (WQS); implementation of the WQS portions of the 40 CFR part 132 (Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System); tribal applications to be treated in a similar manner as a state (TAS) under CWA section 518(e);
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Carbon Black, Ethylene, Cyanide and Spandex (EPA ICR Number 1983.08, OMB Control Number 2060-0489), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 13, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0082, to: (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of approval and solicitation of requests for public hearing.
Notice is hereby given that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is revising its approved Public Water System Supervision Program. Pennsylvania has adopted drinking water regulations for the Revised Total Coliform Rule. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that Pennsylvania's Revised Total Coliform Rule meets all minimum federal requirements, and that it is no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulation. Therefore, EPA has tentatively decided to approve the State program revisions.
Comments or a public hearing must be submitted by November 13, 2018. This determination shall become final and effective on November 13, 2018. If no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received, and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, and if no comments are received which cause EPA to modify its tentative approval.
Comments or a request for a public hearing must be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029. All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following offices:
• Drinking Water Branch, Water Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
• Bureau of Safe Drinking Water, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, P.O. Box 2063, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-2063.
Kelly Moran, Drinking Water Branch (3WP21) at the Philadelphia address given above, via email at
All interested parties are invited to submit written comments on this determination and may request a hearing. All comments will be considered, and if necessary EPA will issue a response. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing will be denied by the Regional Administrator. If a substantial request for a public hearing is made by November 13, 2018, a public hearing will be held. A request for public hearing shall include the following: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the individual, organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination and of information that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and (3) the signature of the individual making the request; or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Hazardous Waste Combustors (EPA ICR Number 1773.12, OMB Control Number 2050-0171), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through October 31, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 13, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2018-0130, to: (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
There is an adjustment increase in the total capital and O&M costs based on the revised estimates of the number of new respondents. As discussed below, because this ICR assumes one new HWC unit per year, we have included capital and O&M costs for CO and O
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings (EPA ICR No. 2289.04, OMB Control No. 2060-0617), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through October 31, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 13, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Ms. Kaye Whitfield, Sector Policies and Programs Division (Mail Code D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2509; fax number: (919) 541-4991; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
T
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 November 7, 2018.
1.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning delivery schedules.
Submit comments on or before November 13, 2018.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0043, Delivery Schedules”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0043, Delivery Schedules” on your attached document.
•
Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA 202-208-4949 or via email at
The time of delivery or performance is an essential contract element and must be clearly stated in solicitations and contracts. The contracting officer may set forth a required delivery schedule or may allow an offeror to propose an alternate delivery schedule, for other than those for construction and architect-engineering, by inserting in solicitations and contracts a clause substantially the same as either FAR 52.211-8, Time of Delivery, or FAR 52.211-9, Desired and Required Time of Delivery. These clauses allow the contractor to fill in their proposed delivery schedule. The information is needed to assure supplies or services are obtained in a timely manner.
A 60-day notice published in the
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the FAR Council invites the public to comment upon a renewal concerning FAR part 23 requirements.
Submit comments on or before December 10, 2018.
The FAR Council invites interested persons to submit comments on this collection by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Mahruba Uddowla, Procurement Analyst, at telephone 703-605-2868, or email
1.
2.
3.
Written comments and suggestions from the public should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate 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) 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,
This information collection requirement, OMB Control No. 9000-0107, currently titled “Notice of Radioactive Materials,” is proposed to be retitled “Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 23 Requirements” due to consolidation with currently approved information collection requirements OMB Control No. 9000-0101, Drug-Free Workplace; 9000-0191, High Global Warming Potential Hydrofluorocarbons; 9000-0194, Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals—Representation; 9000-0147, Pollution Prevention and Right-to-Know Information; 9000-0134, Environmentally Sound Products; and 9000-0180, Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Products Under Service and Construction Contracts.
This information collection requirement pertains to information that a contractor must submit in response to a number of requirements from FAR Part 23, which are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
i. Contained in such equipment and appliances delivered to the Government; or
ii. Added or taken out of such equipment and appliances that will be maintained, repaired, or disposed under the contract.
The contractor is required to report the HFC information annually to a centralized Government website.
4.
5.
6.
(i) Construction products;
(ii) Landscaping products;
(iii) Non-paper paper office supplies;
(iv) Paper and paper products;
(v) Park and recreation products;
(vi) Transportation products;
(vii) Vehicular products; and
(viii) Miscellaneous products.
FAR clause 52.223-9, Estimate of Percentage of Recovered Material Content for EPA-Designated Items, was created to assist agencies with compliance with section 6002. Clause 52.223-9 requires a contractor, on completion of the contract that is for or specifies the use of EPA-designated items containing recovered materials, to (a) estimate the percentage of the total recovered material content delivered or used in performance of the contract, including, if applicable, the percentage of post-consumer material content and (b) submit an estimate to the contracting agency.
Although section 6002 requires that agencies develop these estimates whenever an acquisition sets forth minimum percentages of recovered materials, when the price of the item exceeds $10,000, or when the aggregate amount paid for the item or functionally equivalent items in the preceding fiscal year was $10,000 or more, the clause at 52.223-9 is only used in solicitations and contracts exceeding $150,000. Acquisitions of commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items are excluded from this requirement.
7.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; renewal of advisory committee.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the renewal of the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has determined that it is in the public interest to renew the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee for an additional 2 years beyond the charter expiration date. The new charter will be in effect until October 7, 2020.
Authority for the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee will expire on October 7, 2018, unless the Commissioner formally determines that renewal is in the public interest.
LaToya Bonner, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, email:
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to 45 CFR part 11 and by the General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the renewal of the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee (the Committee). The Committee is a discretionary Federal advisory committee established to provide advice to the Commissioner.
The Committee advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging responsibilities as they relate to helping to ensure safe and effective drugs for human use and, as required, any other product for which FDA has regulatory responsibility.
The Committee reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of dermatologic and ophthalmic disorders and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner.
The Committee shall consist of a core of nine voting members including two Chairpersons. Members and the Chairpersons are selected by the Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the fields of dermatology, ophthalmology, internal medicine, pathology, immunology, epidemiology or statistics, and other related professions. Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4 years. Almost all non-Federal members of this committee serve as Special Government Employees. The core of voting members may include one technically qualified member, selected by the Commissioner or designee, who is identified with consumer interests and is recommended by either a consortium of consumer-oriented organizations or other interested persons. In addition to the voting members, the Committee may include one non-voting member who is identified with industry interests.
Further information regarding the most recent charter and other information can be found at
In light of the fact that no change has been made to the committee name or description of duties, no amendment will be made to 21 CFR 14.100.
This document is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory committees, please check
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of information collections that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
The following is a list of FDA information collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements for the information collections are available on the internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; renewal of advisory committee.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the renewal of the Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has determined that it is in the public interest to renew the Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee for an additional 2 years beyond the charter expiration date. The new charter will be in effect until October 7, 2020.
Authority for the Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee will expire on October 7, 2018, unless the Commissioner formally determines that renewal is in the public interest.
Lauren Tesh, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, email:
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to 45 CFR part 11 and by the General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the renewal of the Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee is a discretionary Federal advisory committee established to provide advice to the Commissioner.
The Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging responsibilities as they relate to helping to ensure safe and effective drugs for human use and, as required, any other product for which the Food and Drug Administration has regulatory responsibility.
The Committee reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of infectious diseases and disorders and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
The Committee shall consist of a core of 13 voting members including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the fields of infectious disease, internal medicine, microbiology, pediatrics, epidemiology or statistics, and related specialties. Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4 years. Almost all non-Federal members of this committee serve as Special Government Employees. The core of voting members may include one technically qualified member, selected by the Commissioner or designee, who is identified with consumer interests and is recommended by either a consortium of consumer-oriented organizations or other interested persons. In addition to the voting members, the Committee may include one non-voting member who is identified with industry interests.
Further information regarding the most recent charter and other information can be found at
This document is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory committees, please check
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hereby giving notice that the charter for the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP) has been renewed.
Julia Gorey, J.D., Designated Federal Official, Executive Director, SACHRP, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, Maryland 20852; telephone: 240-453-8141; fax: 240-453-6909; email address:
SACHRP is a discretionary advisory committee established under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, to provide expert advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Assistant Secretary for Health, on issues and topics pertaining to or associated with the protection of human research subjects within the authority of HHS.
SACHRP is authorized to establish subcommittees to provide assistance for accomplishing its mission and currently maintains two subcommittees. The Subpart A Subcommittee (SAS) was established by SACHRP in October 2006 and is charged with developing recommendations for consideration by SACHRP regarding the application of subpart A of 45 CFR part 46 in the current research environment. The Subcommittee on Harmonization (SOH) was established by SACHRP at its July 2009 meeting and charged with identifying and prioritizing areas in which regulations and/or guidelines for human subjects research adopted by various agencies or offices within HHS would benefit from harmonization, consistency, clarity, simplification and/or coordination.
On September 25, 2018, the Secretary approved renewal of the Committee's charter. The new charter was effected and filed with the appropriate Congressional committees and the Library of Congress on October 1, 2018. Renewal of the Committee's charter gives the Committee authorization to operate until October 1, 2020.
A copy of the Committee's charter is available on the Committee's website at
A copy of the charter can also be obtained by accessing the Federal Advisory Committee Act database that is managed by the Committee Management Secretariat under the General Services Administration. The website for the FACA database is
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Frederick National Laboratory Advisory Committee to the National Cancer Institute.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will also be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website (
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NCI Shady Grove has instituted stringent procedures for entrance into the NCI Shady Grove building. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Macromolecular Structure and Function B Study Section, October 22, 2018, 08:00 a.m. to October 23, 2018, 05:00 p.m., Doubletree Hotel Bethesda, (Formerly Holiday Inn Select), 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on October 22, 2018, starting at 8:00 a.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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 of the NHLBI Special Emphasis Panel.
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.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs,
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact: Dr. Kristianna Pettibone, Evaluator, Program Analysis Branch, NIEHS, NIH, 530 Davis Dr., Room 3064, Morrisville, NC 20560, or call non-toll-free number 984-287-3303 or email your request, including your address to:
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
Information gained from this primary data collection will be used in conjunction with data from grantee progress reports and presentations at grantee meetings to inform internal programs and new funding initiatives. Outcome information to be collected includes measures of agency-funded research resulting in dissemination of findings, investigator career development, grant-funded knowledge and products, commercial products and drugs, laws, regulations and standards, guidelines and recommendations, information on patents and new drug applications and community outreach and public awareness relevant to extramural research funding and emerging areas of research. Satisfaction information to be collected includes measures of satisfaction with the type of funding or program management mechanism used, challenges and benefits with the program support received, and gaps in the research.
•
• National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD);
• National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH);
• National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS);
• National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS); and
• National Cancer Institute (NCI)
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 700.
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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice.
On October 2, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of availability of the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines. In the
Mr. Jonathan Smith, Office of Marine Environmental Response Policy, U.S. Coast Guard, 202-372-2675.
On page 1-2 of the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines, in Section 1.3, the “Effective Date” is corrected to read: “The 2016.1 PREP Guidelines are effective on October 1, 2018. The PREP Guidelines follow the calendar year (January 1-December 31).” A corrected version of the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines has been uploaded to the Coast Guard Homeport site and can be accessed at
Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of determination.
The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, pursuant to law, that it is necessary to waive certain laws, regulations, and other legal requirements in order to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads in the vicinity of the international land border of the United States in Hidalgo County in the State of Texas.
This determination takes effect on October 11, 2018.
Important mission requirements of the Department
Congress has provided to the Secretary of Homeland Security a number of authorities necessary to carry out DHS's border security mission. One of those authorities is found at section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as amended (“IIRIRA”). Public Law 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-554 (Sept. 30, 1996) (8 U.S.C 1103 note), as amended by the REAL ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, Div. B, 119 Stat. 231, 302, 306 (May 11, 2005) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the Secure Fence Act of 2006, Public Law 109-367, § 3, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, Div. E, Title V, § 564, 121 Stat. 2090 (Dec. 26, 2007). In section 102(a) of IIRIRA, Congress provided that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads (including the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States. In section 102(b) of IIRIRA, Congress mandated the installation of additional fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors on the southwest border. Finally, in section 102(c) of IIRIRA, Congress granted to the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to waive all legal requirements that I, in my sole discretion, determine necessary to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads authorized by section 102 of IIRIRA.
The United States Border Patrol's Rio Grande Valley Sector is an area of high illegal entry. For the last several years, the Rio Grande Valley Sector has seen more apprehensions of illegal aliens than any other sector of the United States Border Patrol (“Border Patrol”). For example, in fiscal year 2017 alone, Border Patrol apprehended over 137,000 illegal aliens. In that same year Border Patrol seized approximately 260,000 pounds of marijuana and approximately 1,200 pounds of cocaine.
In order to satisfy the need for additional border infrastructure in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, DHS will take action to construct barriers and roads. DHS will construct barriers and roads within various segments of the border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. The segments of the border within which such construction will occur are referred to herein as the “project area” and are more specifically described in Section 2 below.
I determine that the following areas in the vicinity of the United States border, located in Hidalgo County in the State of Texas, within the United States Border Patrol's Rio Grande Valley Sector, are areas of high illegal entry (the “project area”):
• Starting approximately a quarter mile west of the location where the levee intersects Goodwin/Abram road and running east in proximity to the International Boundary and Water Commission (“IBWC”) levee to approximately a quarter mile east of Anzalduas Dam Road, a total distance of approximately eight (8) miles.
• Starting at the eastern boundary of the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge and running east in proximity to the IBWC levee approximately two and four-tenths (2.4) miles to the western boundary of the Monterrey Banco Tract of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge.
• Starting at the eastern boundary of the Monterrey Banco Tract of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge and running south and east in proximity to the IBWC levee for approximately one and one-half (1.5) miles.
• Starting at the eastern boundary of the La Coma Tract of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge and running east in proximity to the IBWC levee for approximately two and one-half (2.5) miles.
• Starting where South International Boulevard crosses the IBWC levee and running west and east in proximity to the IBWC levee approximately one-half (0.5) of a mile in both directions.
• Starting approximately one-quarter (0.25) of a mile west of the western boundary of the Mercedes Settling Basin and running northeast in proximity to the IBWC levee approximately two and one-half (2.5) miles.
There is presently an acute and immediate need to construct physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the border of the United States in order to prevent unlawful entries into the United States in the project area. In order to ensure the expeditious construction of the barriers and roads in the project area, I have determined that it is necessary that I exercise the authority that is vested in me by section 102(c) of IIRIRA.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 102(c) of IIRIRA, I hereby waive in their entirety, with respect to the construction of roads and physical barriers (including, but not limited to, accessing the project area, creating and using staging areas, the conduct of earthwork, excavation, fill, and site preparation, and installation and upkeep of physical barriers, roads, supporting elements, drainage, erosion controls, safety features, lighting, cameras, and sensors) in the project area, all of the following statutes, including all federal, state, or other laws, regulations, and legal requirements of, deriving from, or related to the subject of, the following statutes, as amended: The National Environmental Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (Jan. 1, 1970) (42 U.S.C. 4321
This waiver does not revoke or supersede the previous waiver published in the
Office of Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is republishing the Operations Notice published in the
The Public Housing/Section 8 Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program was first established under Section 204 of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 to provide statutory and regulatory flexibility to participating public housing agencies (PHAs) under three statutory objectives. Those three statutory objectives are: To reduce cost and achieve greater cost effectiveness in Federal expenditures; to give incentives to families with children whose heads of household are either working, seeking work, or are participating in job training, educational or other programs that assist in obtaining employment and becoming economically self-sufficient; and to increase housing choices for low-income families. This Operations Notice for the Expansion of the MTW Demonstration Program (Operations Notice) establishes requirements for the implementation and continued operation of the MTW demonstration program pursuant to the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute.
Marianne Nazzaro, Director, Moving to Work Demonstration Program, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4130, Washington, DC 20410; email address
This republication of the October 5, 2018 Operations Notice, originally published at 83 FR 50387, includes an Appendix that was omitted.
Section 239 of the Fiscal Year 2016 Appropriations Act, Public Law 114-113 (2016 MTW Expansion Statute), signed by the President in December 2015, authorizes HUD to expand the MTW demonstration program from the current size of 39 agencies to an additional 100 agencies over a period of 7 years. This Notice was originally published on January 23, 2017, in the
Changes to this Notice have been made to incorporate feedback from the two previous publications and to reflect policy decisions. The primary changes are as follows:
• The term of participation has been set at 12 years from the year of designation in response to public comments for the term to be at least 10 years from the year of designation.
• In response to public comments, the Department removed the General Waivers and Conditional Waivers categories and replaced them with a singular MTW Waivers category, which MTW agencies may implement without further approval from HUD.
○ In restructuring the MTW Waivers, the Notice now includes safe harbors, which are defined as the additional requirements, beyond those specified in the activity description, that the agency must follow in implementing activities without further HUD approval.
○ MTW Waivers now include specific guidance on impact analyses, hardship policies, and applicability of waivers to elderly/disabled families.
○ An additional MTW Waiver was added: “Increase Elderly Age,” which allows agencies to amend the definition of an elderly person to be an individual who is at least sixty-five.
○ The Homeownership Waiver was removed. Upon reviewing this waiver, the Department determined that the activities provided to agencies under the waiver were already available under the Section 32 Homeownership Program.
• The 90 percent voucher utilization requirement was removed. The MTW Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) Renewal Formula has been revised to use as a base, all prior-year MTW-eligible Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) funding expenses paid from HAP, including HAP expenses plus non-HAP expenses.
• For a prospective agency to be eligible for selection to the MTW demonstration, it must be a high performer in either the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) or the Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP).
• Regionalization was removed from the MTW Operations Notice and will be implemented through a separate forthcoming notice.
• Agencies will formalize their MTW status with an amendment to their Annual Contributions Contract.
• The monitoring of the requirement that an MTW agency designated pursuant to the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute continues to assist substantially the same number of families has been simplified. Compliance will be determined using a baseline ratio of total public housing and HCV HAP funding to families served.
The MTW demonstration program was first established under Section 204 of Title II of section 101(e) of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-281; 42 U.S.C. 1437f note (1996 MTW Statute)
• Reduce cost and achieve greater cost effectiveness in Federal expenditures;
• Give incentives to families with children where the head of household is working, seeking work, or is preparing for work by participating in job training, educational programs, or programs that assist people to obtain employment and become economically self-sufficient; and
• Increase housing choices for eligible low-income families.
To achieve these objectives, PHAs selected for participation in the MTW demonstration are given exemptions from many existing public housing and HCV rules and offered more flexibility with how they use their Federal funds. MTW agencies use this opportunity presented by the MTW demonstration to better address local housing needs. HUD learns from the experience of MTW agencies to develop new housing policy recommendations that can positively impact assisted housing delivery for PHAs nationwide.
In addition to statutory and regulatory relief,
Throughout participation in the MTW demonstration program, MTW agencies must continue to meet five statutory requirements established under the 1996 MTW Statute. The five statutory requirements are:
• At least 75 percent of the families assisted by participating demonstration public housing authorities shall be very low-income families, as defined in section 3(b)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937;
• Establishing a reasonable rent policy, which shall be designed to encourage employment and self-sufficiency by participating families, consistent with the purpose of this demonstration, such as by excluding some or all of a family's earned income for purposes of determining rent;
• Continuing to assist substantially the same total number of eligible low-income families as would have been served had the amounts not been combined;
• Maintaining a comparable mix of families (by family size) as would have been provided had the amounts not been used under the demonstration; and
• Assuring that housing assisted under the demonstration program meets housing quality standards established or approved by the Secretary.
Currently, there are 39 agencies
As the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute directs, HUD is authorized to expand the MTW demonstration program from the current level of 39 agencies to an additional 100 agencies over a period of 7 years, ending in 2023. In expanding the MTW demonstration, HUD intends to build on the successes and lessons learned from the demonstration thus far. The vision for the MTW expansion is to learn from MTW interventions to improve the delivery of Federally assisted housing and promote self-sufficiency for low-income families across the Nation. Through the expansion, HUD will extend flexibility to a broader range of PHAs both in terms of size and geographic diversity and will balance the flexibility inherent in MTW with the need for measurement, evaluation, and prudent oversight.
HUD will select the additional 100 PHAs in cohorts, with applications for each cohort to be sought via PIH Notice. For each cohort of agencies selected, the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute requires HUD to direct all the agencies within the cohort to implement one specific policy change, which HUD will evaluate rigorously. MTW agencies may implement policy changes in addition to the policy change directed by HUD as long as those policy changes do not conflict or interfere with the cohort study. As required by the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute, the HUD-appointed MTW Research Advisory Committee, described further below, advised HUD on the policy changes to be tested through the new cohorts of MTW agencies and the methods of research and evaluation.
The 2016 MTW Expansion Statute also includes a provision allowing the Secretary to designate an MTW agency as a regional MTW agency—at the request of said agency—should the Secretary determine that unified administration of assistance “under sections 8 and 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f and g)” by that agency across multiple jurisdictions will lead to (a) efficiencies and to (b) greater housing choice for low-income persons in the region. HUD will issue separate guidance regarding how an MTW agency may be designated as a regional MTW agency.
The 2016 MTW Expansion Statute provides that the 100 MTW agencies selected must be high performers in either HUD's Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) or its Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) at the time of application to the demonstration, and represent geographic diversity across the country. Further, the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute states that of these 100 PHAs:
• No less than 50 PHAs shall administer 1,000 or fewer aggregate housing voucher and public housing units;
• No less than 47 PHAs shall administer 1,001-6,000 aggregate housing voucher and public housing units;
• No more than 3 PHAs shall administer 6,001-27,000 aggregate housing voucher and public housing units;
• No PHA shall be granted MTW designation if it administers more than 27,000 aggregate housing voucher and public housing units; and
• Five of the PHAs selected shall be agencies with a Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) portfolio award.
HUD will issue separate PIH Notices, by cohort, soliciting applications from eligible PHAs for participation in the MTW demonstration. These Notices, when issued, will outline the specific application submission requirements, evaluation criteria, and process HUD will use when selecting PHAs for MTW designation.
The PHA sizes eligible for participation in the MTW demonstration are statutory and were defined by Congress; therefore, HUD is unable to waive or modify those size restrictions.
The 2016 MTW Expansion Statute required HUD to form and consult with a Federal MTW Research Advisory Committee (the Committee), established in May 2016. The Committee is governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees. The purpose of the Committee is to provide independent advice with respect to the policies to be studied through the MTW expansion and the related methods of research and evaluation. The Committee is charged with advising HUD on the following:
• Policy proposals and evaluation methods for the MTW demonstration to inform the one specific policy change required for each cohort of agencies;
• Rigorous research methodologies to measure the impact of policy changes studied;
• Policy changes adopted by MTW agencies that have proven successful and can be applied more broadly to all PHAs; and
• Statutory and/or regulatory changes (specific waivers and associated activities, and program and policy flexibility) necessary to implement policy changes for all PHAs.
The Committee has no role in reviewing or selecting the 100 PHAs to participate in the expansion of the MTW demonstration.
The Committee members were appointed to a two-year term in June 2016 by the HUD Secretary and chosen to ensure balance, diversity, and a broad representation of ideas.
Based on the advice of the Committee, HUD will study, by cohort of MTW
•
•
•
•
Through the MTW expansion, HUD seeks to design and test new approaches to providing and administering housing assistance and then to apply the lessons-learned nationwide, all within a framework of simplifying program administration. This is laid out in HUD's guiding principles for the expansion, which are: (1) Simplify; (2) learn; and (3) apply. The Operations Notice is an embodiment of this vision. The Operations Notice describes a framework for the MTW demonstration that streamlines and simplifies HUD's implementation of MTW status and the associated flexibilities of participating MTW agencies while providing for the rigorous evaluation of specific policy changes. This framework would apply to all PHAs designated as an MTW agency pursuant to the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute and to any previously-designated MTW agencies that agree to operate under the framework of the Operations Notice. These PHAs are referred to in the Operations Notice as “MTW agencies.” Participation in the MTW Expansion will be formalized by an amendment to the PHA's Consolidated Annual Contributions Contract, which is called the MTW CACC Amendment.
The Operations Notice is organized into 11 sections as follows:
The Operations Notice establishes requirements for the implementation and continued operation of the expansion of the MTW demonstration program pursuant to the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute. The Operations Notice also applies to all PHAs designated as MTW pursuant to the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute and to any previously-designated MTW agency that elects to operate under the terms of this Notice.
Through the MTW CACC Amendment, an MTW agency agrees to abide by the program structure, flexibilities, and terms and conditions detailed in the Operations Notice for the term of the agency's participation in MTW demonstration. Any significant updates to the Operations Notice by HUD will be preceded by a public comment period. HUD may supplement the Operations Notice with PIH Notices providing more detailed guidance, including with respect to implementing future appropriations act provisions and revisions to financial policies and procedures. Additionally, HUD will develop informational materials to address various program elements, which HUD will post on the MTW website.
Unless otherwise provided in the Operations Notice, an agency's MTW program applies to all of the agency's public housing units (including agency-owned properties and units comprising a part of mixed-income, mixed finance communities, tenant-based HCV assistance, project-based HCV assistance under Section 8(o), and Homeownership units developed using Section 8(y) HCV assistance. This Operations Notice
PHAs are reminded that the MTW demonstration program does not permit waivers related to statutes outside of the 1937 Act or regulations promulgated under authority outside of the 1937 Act, including any waivers to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, or environmental requirements. Other subject matter prohibited from waivers or restricted with respect to waivers is discussed elsewhere in this Notice.
Pursuant to the 1996 MTW Statute and 2016 MTW Expansion Statute, the Appendix of this Notice provides waivers of certain provisions of the 1937 Act as well as the implementing requirements and regulations. These waivers and associated activities afford MTW agencies the opportunity to use their MTW authority to pursue locally-driven policies, procedures, and programs in order to further the goals of the demonstration. In implementing MTW activities, agencies will ensure assisted families are made aware of the impacts the activity(s) may have to their tenancy. The following are the three categories of waivers that MTW agencies may pursue: (a) MTW Waivers; (b)
The Appendix contains the available waivers and associated activities that MTW agencies may implement after they have been included in the MTW Supplement (described in Section 6 of this Notice) of an approved PHA Plan. The Appendix includes the waiver name, waiver description, statutes and regulations waived, permissible activities, and safe harbors. The waiver description defines the authorization provided to the MTW agency, subject to the terms of this Notice. The list of statutes and regulations waived details the citations of the 1937 Act requirements that may be waived by an MTW agency in order to implement an activity. The list of waivers and list of activities are organized by program type. The safe harbors section contains the additional requirements (beyond those specified in the activity description) that the agency must satisfy in implementing activities without further HUD approval. If an MTW agency wishes to implement additional activities not contained in the MTW Waivers, request to waive a statutory or regulatory requirement, and/or request the ability to go beyond an MTW activity's safe harbor(s), the MTW agency must submit an Agency-Specific Waiver Request for approval from HUD as explained further in Section 2.b of this Notice.
MTW agencies may implement any activity contained in the Appendix as long as it is included in the MTW Supplement of an approved PHA Plan and implemented within the associated safe harbor(s). The MTW agency will update the MTW Supplement annually, as described in Section 6 of this Notice, to reflect the new activities it plans to implement in the coming fiscal year and ongoing activities it has implemented in the prior year, which includes estimated costs/savings for planned activities that have a cost implication. While MTW activities are listed by specific waiver name, MTW agencies may use the MTW Supplement to combine activities together to create more comprehensive initiatives at the local level.
The MTW Waivers only waive certain provisions of the 1937 Act and its implementing regulations. The five statutory requirements established under the 1996 MTW Statute cannot be waived. Other applicable Federal, state, and local requirements shall continue to apply even in the event of a conflict between such a requirement and a waiver or activity granted by this Notice. Accordingly, HUD and the MTW agencies may not waive or otherwise deviate from compliance with Fair Housing and Civil Rights laws and regulations. Additionally, in implementing activities, MTW agencies remain subject to all other terms, conditions, and obligations under this Notice, and all other Federal requirements applicable to the public housing program, the HCV program, Federal funds, and PHAs. To the extent any MTW activity conflicts with any of the five statutory requirements or other applicable requirements, HUD reserves the right to require the MTW agency to discontinue the activity or to revise the activity to comply with this Notice, and the other applicable Federal requirements. HUD also reserves the right to require an MTW agency to discontinue any activity derived from a waiver should it have significant negative impacts on families or the agency's operation of its assisted housing programs using Section 8 and 9 funds, as determined by HUD.
Pursuant to the exceptions in Section 9 of this Notice, HUD understands that MTW agencies may wish to request Agency-Specific Waivers to implement activities, waive statutory or regulatory requirements that are not in the Appendix, and/or expand the safe harbor(s) of an activity included in the MTW Waivers. There are two categories of Agency-Specific Waiver Requests: (1) A request to waive a statutory or regulatory requirement, or to implement an activity, not provided for in the Appendix; and (2) a request to expand an activity that is in the Appendix outside of the listed safe harbor (or multiple safe harbors). The MTW agency must obtain explicit written approval from HUD for each Agency-Specific Waiver Request prior to implementation. Agency-Specific Waiver Requests are optional and made at the discretion of the MTW agency.
To submit an Agency-Specific Waiver Request(s), an MTW agency will first share the specifics and details of the proposed waiver in the MTW Supplement to the Annual PHA Plan, indicating which of the two categories of Agency-Specific Waiver Requests is being sought. The MTW Supplement form, when finalized, will provide a comprehensive explanation of the elements required to submit an Agency-Specific Waiver Request.
The approval of the Annual PHA Plan and MTW Supplement during this stage does not constitute an approval of the Agency-Specific Waiver Request. Rather, the public comment and review period affords the MTW agency's Resident Advisory Board (RAB), community, and residents the opportunity to provide input on the proposed waiver prior to its submission to HUD.
Once the MTW agency obtains approval of its Annual PHA Plan and MTW Supplement containing the Agency-Specific Waiver Request information, the agency will then submit a letter to its local HUD field office requesting final approval of the Agency-Specific Waiver Request(s). This letter is sent and reviewed outside of the Annual PHA Plan and MTW Supplement process. It must include: A good cause justification that relates to one or more of the three MTW statutory objectives; the statute, regulation, and/or MTW Waiver safe harbor which the MTW agency seeks to waive and its justification for doing so; a copy of the approval letter for the Annual PHA Plan and MTW Supplement containing the proposed waiver; a description of the initiative; the implementation timeline; and any other information requested by HUD. Depending on the nature of the request, HUD may ask for an associated hardship policy, impact analysis, and/or other information necessary to understand the waiver and its possible effects. Agency-Specific Waiver Requests may not conflict with the agency's cohort-specific evaluation.
If the Agency-Specific Waiver is approved by HUD and the changes between the Agency-Specific Waiver Request and the Waiver that HUD ultimately approves do not constitute a “significant amendment” to the Annual PHA Plan, as defined by the agency, then the Agency-Specific Waiver may be implemented once the MTW Agency receives HUD's explicit written approval. The MTW Agency will need to submit a narrative description of the Agency Specific Waiver in its subsequent MTW Supplement.
If the Agency-Specific Waiver is approved by HUD with changes
To the extent a policy in an Agency-Specific Waiver Request conflicts with any of the five statutory requirements, the cohort-specific evaluation, or other applicable requirements, HUD shall require the MTW agency to discontinue the policy or to revise the policy to comply with this Notice and the other applicable federal requirements. HUD also reserves the right to require an MTW agency to discontinue any policy derived from a waiver should it have significant negative impacts on families or the agency's operation of its assisted housing programs using Section 8 and 9 funds, as determined by HUD.
Pursuant to the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute, at the time of designation as an MTW agency, each agency will be selected into an evaluative cohort that seeks to test a specific policy change, as specified in that cohort's Selection Notice. Cohort-Specific Waivers include statutory and/or regulatory waivers and associated activities that are unique to a specific cohort to allow them to complete their required cohort study. Depending upon the cohort's study, there is a possibility that HUD restricts certain activities within the MTW Waivers or provides additional waivers that are not included in the Appendix. It is also possible that the specific policy changes to be tested through a given cohort would not need any Cohort-Specific Waivers. Any MTW activities that would impact or conflict with the cohort-specific policy change will be identified in the respective Selection Notice so that the MTW agency is aware of this potential restriction on its use of waivers before it enters the MTW demonstration program. Cohort-Specific Waivers and the associated MTW activities may only be used to the extent allowed under the applicable evaluative framework provided by HUD in the applicable Selection Notice.
In determining the Cohort-Specific Waivers that will be included in the Selection Notices, HUD will remove and/or add waivers and associated activities based on whether a waiver and its associated activity would impact or conflict with the specific policy(s) to be studied in the MTW agency's cohort group. The addition or removal of any waivers and associated activities would only apply within the confines of the cohort study. For instance, if the study focuses on rent models as it relates to the voucher program, then an agency's public housing program would not be affected by the addition or removal of any such waivers and associated activities. If the MTW Waiver(s) and associated activity(s) are not provided to a cohort, or some portion of the agency's portfolio within the cohort, to allow the cohort to test a specific policy change, the agencies within that cohort study will not be able to conduct that activity(s) until the evaluation of the specific policy change has concluded.
The term of each agency's MTW designation will be 12 years (PHA Fiscal Years) starting from the time of its designation as an MTW agency. All waivers and associated activities provided through the Operations Notice expire at the end of the agency's term of participation. However, Cohort-Specific Waivers provided to enable a cohort-specific policy change may be extended beyond the agency's term of participation with HUD's specific approval if HUD determines that additional time is needed to evaluate the policy change, subject to continued statutory authority for the MTW demonstration.
Once an MTW agency has implemented an activity pursuant to the authority of the Operations Notice, the agency may continue to implement that activity throughout the term of its participation in the demonstration, subject to the other terms and conditions of this Notice. The MTW agency must end all activities requiring MTW-specific waivers upon expiration of MTW participation, as HUD cannot guarantee that it will be able to extend any waivers and associated activities beyond that point. For this reason, when entering into contracts with third-parties that draw upon MTW flexibility, the agency should disclose that such flexibility is only available during the term of the agency's participation in the MTW demonstration as permitted in this Notice. An exception is third-party contracts that relate to the cohort-specific policy change and associated waiver(s). If HUD determines that additional time beyond the end of the agency's MTW term is needed to evaluate a cohort-specific policy change, HUD may approve an extension of any cohort-specific waiver(s).
During the term of the demonstration, subject to appropriations, HUD will provide an MTW agency with public housing Operating Fund Program grants, public housing Capital Fund Program (CFP) grants, and/or HCV HAP and Administrative Fee assistance as detailed in this Notice. CFP grants may include Formula grants; Demolition or Disposition Transitional Funding (DDTF), which are included in regular Formula grants; and/or funds from older Replacement Housing Factor (RHF) grants (a program later superseded by DDTF). The funding amount for MTW agencies may be increased by additional allocations of vouchers that the agency is awarded over the term of its participation in the MTW demonstration. MTW Funding provided to an MTW agency, including public housing Operating Fund Program grants, public housing CFP grants, and HCV HAP and Administrative Fee assistance, is subject to any future laws and appropriations. If a future law or appropriations bill conflicts with this Operations Notice, the law or appropriations bill shall be implemented, and no breach of contract claim, or any claim for monetary damages, may result from the conflict or implementation of the conflicting law or regulation.
MTW agencies will have the flexibility to apply fungibility among public housing Operating Fund, public housing Capital Fund, and HCV HAP and Administrative Fee assistance. These flexibilities expand the eligible uses of each covered funding stream, but do not negate the need for both the PHA and HUD to be able to account for the funding from its original source to the date of its ultimate eligible use
An agency participating in the MTW demonstration program may flexibly use public housing Operating and Capital Funds provided under Sections 9(d) and 9(e) of the 1937 Act and HCV HAP and Administrative Fee program funds provided under Section 8 of the 1937 Act, referred to collectively as MTW Funding. Certain provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the 1937 Act and 24 CFR 982 are waived as necessary to implement this flexibility. Once the agency receives its MTW designation through the execution of the MTW CACC Amendment, this flexibility in the use of MTW Funding does not require prior HUD approval.
The agency may use MTW Funding covered by MTW flexibility for any eligible activity under Sections 9(d)(1), 9(e)(1) and Section 8(o) of the 1937 Act and for the local, non-traditional activities specified in this Notice, including in the Appendix. Any reserves the MTW agency has accumulated prior to signing an MTW CACC Amendment (including public housing Operating and Capital Reserves and HCV HAP and Administrative Fee Reserves) must be used for their originally appropriated purposes and may not be used flexibly for any eligible MTW activity described in the Appendix. All MTW PHA expenditures, including for local, non-traditional activities, must be consistent with the PHA's charter, approved 5-Year and Annual PHA Plans, and the approved MTW Supplement to the Annual PHA Plan.
(1) The calculation of an MTW agency's Operating Fund subsidy grant eligibility will continue in accordance with operating subsidy formula law, regulations, and appropriations act requirements. As these programmatic and financial requirements are updated, MTW agencies will be affected by and shall comply with these changes.
(2) The agency may use these funds for any eligible activity permissible under Section 9(e)(1) of the 1937 Act or, if the agency proposes to use the funding under its MTW flexibility, it may also use these funds for any eligible activity permissible under Section 8(o), Section 9(d)(1), and for the local, non-traditional activities specified in this Notice, including in the Appendix.
(3) For Operating Fund grant funding, the MTW agency has accumulated prior to signing an MTW CACC Amendment, the agency may not use such funds for eligible MTW purposes other than the originally appropriated purpose of the funds (
(1) The agency's public housing Capital Fund formula characteristics and grant amounts, including DDTF and Replacement Housing Factor (RHF), will continue to be calculated in accordance with public housing law, regulations, and appropriations act requirements.
(2) MTW agencies must continue to follow the immediate need requirements applicable to all Capital funds and may not accelerate their drawdown of Capital funds for the purpose of funding reserves or for any other purpose. All Capital funds, including funds in BLI 1410 (Administrative Costs) and Budget Line Item (BLI) 1492 (MTW), must be drawn down only when funds are due and payable.
(3) The agency may use these funds for any eligible activity permissible under Section 9(d)(1) of the 1937 Act or, if the agency proposes to use the funding under its MTW flexibility, it may also use these funds for any eligible activity permissible under Section 8(o), Section 9(e)(1), and for the local, non-traditional activities specified in this Notice, including in the Appendix. Capital Fund Program (CFP) funds used for activities under section 9(d)(1) are subject to all requirements relevant to non-MTW agency CFP funding, including eligible activities and cost limits.
(4) For Capital Funds the MTW agency has accumulated prior to signing an MTW CACC Amendment, the agency may not use such funds for eligible MTW purposes other than the originally appropriated purpose of the funds (
(5) In requisitioning Capital Fund grant funds, the MTW agency will request funds using traditional Capital Fund Budget Line Items (BLIs) for funds to be used for activities under section 9(d) and using the available MTW Budget Line (BLI 1492) items for activities under section 9(e), section 8(o), or local, non-traditional activities. MTW agencies shall not use the Transfer to Operations Budget Line (BLI 1406) since funds for all non-section 9 activities shall be included in the MTW Budget Line (BLI 1492). The agency will provide to HUD information on all capital activities funded by the MTW Funding as necessary to ensure compliance with requirements outside the scope of MTW, including environmental review requirements and Energy and Performance Information Center (EPIC) reporting requirements.
(6) The agency remains subject to the requirements of Section 9(j) of the 1937 Act with respect to Capital Fund grants. Section 9(d) funds remain subject to the obligation and expenditure deadlines and requirements provided in Section 9(j) despite the fact that they may be in the MTW Single Fund. Capital Funds awarded to MTW agencies must be obligated within 2 years and expended within 4 years of award. Funds not obligated or expended within those timeframes will be subject to recapture. As with all agencies, an MTW agency may requisition CFP funds from HUD only when such funds are due and payable, unless HUD approves another payment schedule.
(1)
• If an MTW Agency signs its MTW CACC Amendment in July 2018, CY 2019 will be the Initial Year in the MTW demonstration. The MTW Agency's CY 2019 HAP renewal funding will be calculated based on the Agency's CY 2018 HAP expenses, adjusted by inflation and proration (assuming this is the formula in the 2019 Appropriations Act).
(2)
• In CY 2019, an MTW Agency expended $3,600,000 on HAP and $400,000 on eligible non-HAP MTW expenses. The agency's HCV HAP renewal funding for CY 2020 will be $4 million (assuming the HAP Renewal Eligibility Cap is greater than $4 million), adjusted by an inflation factor and any applicable national proration.
(3)
• Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) budget authority,
• HUD-held HAP reserves (undisbursed budget authority),
• PHA-held HAP reserves (
• Any funds from the HAP Set-aside (if available after PHA application and approval), and
• Administrative Fee reserves (
HAP expenses or non-HAP MTW expenses that were covered by any other funding source (for example, public housing Operating Funds and Capital Funds, and current year HCV Administrative Fee funds) will not be included in the MTW PHA's HCV renewal funding calculation.
(4)
• For (1), the number of MTW-eligible ACC authorized units is measured in unit months available (UMAs).
• For (2), the inflated pre-MTW PUC is projected using, as a base, the monthly PUC for the CY in which the agency signed its MTW CACC Amendment. HUD applies an inflation factor to this base PUC to estimate what the PHA's HCV PUC would be, had the PHA not joined the MTW program, as of the re-benchmark year.
After the calculation of the HAP Renewal Eligibility Cap, it is compared with the MTW PHA's actual total combined HAP/non-HAP expenses. The lower of these two amounts—(1) the HAP Renewal Eligibility Cap or (2) the MTW PHA's actual total combined HAP/non-HAP expenses—is then adjusted by the inflation factor and any national proration factor to determine the MTW PHA's CY renewal funding.
• If an MTW Agency signs its MTW CACC Amendment in July 2018, CY 2019 will be the Initial Year in the MTW demonstration. In the Initial CY (CY 2019) the MTW Agency's renewal formula is the same formula that is used for non-MTW PHAs. In calculating the MTW Agency's HCV renewal funding for CY 2020, the following information applies:
○ The MTW PHA's average monthly PUC for CY 2018 was $700.
○ The CY 2019 inflation rate is 2 percent.
○ The number of MTW-eligible ACC authorized units during CY 2019 is 800 units. (In this example all units were under ACC as of January 1, 2019, so the number of unit months available (UMAs) is simply 800 units multiplied by 12 months, or 9,600 UMAs).
• The HAP Renewal Eligibility Cap for CY 2020 is calculated by first determining the estimated PUC for CY 2019, which is $714 (the monthly PUC for CY 2018 inflated for CY 2019, or $700 × 1.02). The estimated PUC for CY 2019 is then multiplied by the MTW PHA's CY 2019 MTW-eligible ACC authorized UMAs
• The HAP Renewal Eligibility Cap ($6,854,400) is then compared to the MTW Agency's total combined HAP/non-HAP expenses for the re-benchmark year that originated from the eligible funding sources described earlier in this Notice. If the total combined HAP/non-HAP expenses do not exceed $6,854,400, the MTW Agency's CY 2020 renewal funding will be the total combined HAP/non-HAP expenses adjusted by an inflation factor and any national proration. If the total combined HAP/non-HAP expenses exceed $6,854,400, the MTW Agency's CY 2020 renewal funding will be $6,854,400, adjusted by an inflation factor and any national proration.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
MTW agencies must submit year-end unaudited financial information to the Department no later than 2 months after their fiscal year end using the Financial Data Schedule (FDS) contained in the Real Estate Assessment Center's (REAC) Financial Assessment Subsystem (FASS-PH), or its successor system. Current financial reporting requirements for MTW agencies are posted on the REAC website at
MTW agencies are also required to electronically submit their audited financial information, if applicable, to the Department no later than 9 months after their fiscal year end. MTW agencies must include public housing project level financial information in the FDS and must follow the Asset Management guidelines established in Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Notice 2007-9 Supplement to Financial Management Handbook Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Revised April 2007, and any subsequent updates to this Handbook or PIH Notice. MTW agencies will conform to the cost requirements of 2 CFR part 200 and any HUD implementation thereof.
MTW agencies must procure an Independent Public Accountant (IPA) to perform an annual audit pursuant to Federal requirements at 2 CFR part 200 and 24 CFR 990.190, or successor, as well as any audit compliance supplements developed specifically for use with the MTW demonstration.
Completed IPA audits must be submitted to HUD in accordance with current HUD regulations. HUD will review IPA audits of MTW agencies to determine appropriate action relative to any findings, prepare recommendations for audit finding resolution, and follow up with MTW agencies to assure finding closure. If there are audit findings related to the MTW program itself, HUD will monitor the resolution of all audit findings.
As a condition of participating in the MTW demonstration, MTW agencies agree to cooperate fully with HUD and its contractors in the monitoring and evaluation of the MTW demonstration. MTW agencies shall keep records and submit reports and other information as required by HUD. This includes any data collection required for the use of waivers and associated activities, for the uses of MTW funds within and across funding streams, and any evaluation efforts that HUD undertakes for the cohort-specific policy changes.
MTW is a demonstration that provides PHAs flexibilities to innovate and try different approaches to housing assistance in order to achieve at least one of the three statutory objectives laid out in the 1996 MTW Statute. At its core, the demonstration is an opportunity for PHAs, participants, HUD, stakeholders, and the general public to learn from different approaches to providing Federal housing assistance to low-income families. This includes learning from approaches that are effective and produce desired outcomes, and from approaches that are less effective than anticipated and where results may have unintended consequences.
Because MTW agencies can use different flexibilities calling on multiple activities within the MTW Waivers to serve local populations in various parts of the country, interpreting PHA-reported performance data on the effects of an individual MTW activity can be
HUD envisions three types of evaluation: Program-wide evaluation, cohort-specific evaluation, and ad hoc evaluation.
Program-wide evaluation would seek to assess whether or not, and to what extent, MTW agencies use Federal dollars more efficiently, help residents find employment and become self-sufficient, and/or increase housing choices for low-income families. HUD intends to develop a method for program-wide evaluation that is based, to the extent possible, on information already being collected through existing HUD administrative data systems. HUD may determine and require that additional reporting is necessary to effectively evaluate MTW.
The 2016 MTW Expansion Statute requires HUD to direct all the agencies in a cohort to implement one specific policy change and to conduct a rigorous evaluation of the one specific policy change. The MTW Research Advisory Committee has considered input from the public and advised HUD on the policy changes to be tested through the new cohorts of MTW agencies and on the methods of research and evaluation.
The cohort-specific policy change and evaluation methods will be described in the applicable Selection Notice so that the MTW agency is aware, in advance of application to the MTW demonstration program, of the policy it will be required to implement and the evaluation requirements. The specific evaluation methods and requirements for participating MTW agencies will vary based on the policy changes to be tested. For example, some cohorts of MTW agencies may be required to participate in randomized control trials, while others may be required to participate in detailed process studies or ethnographic research. HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) will take the lead on evaluating cohort-specific policy changes, and funds have been appropriated by Congress for this evaluation. In all cases, the purpose of the evaluation will be to measure the outcomes associated with the specific policy change(s) in order to offer policy recommendations for implementing the policy change(s) across all PHAs.
HUD will determine the length and timeframe for the evaluation, which will be informed by feedback provided by the MTW Research Advisory Committee. In some cases, the evaluation timeframe may extend beyond the agency's term of MTW participation. The MTW agency is required to participate in the evaluation for the full timeframe designated by HUD. HUD may extend waivers and associated activities beyond the agency's term of participation to the extent that those waivers and associated activities are needed to support the evaluation of the specific policy change and HUD determines whether additional time is needed to evaluate the policy change.
HUD reserves the right to request, and the MTW agency agrees to provide, any additional information required by law or required for the sound administration or evaluation of the MTW agency.
In general, MTW agencies will be subject to the same planning and reporting protocols as non-MTW agencies, including the PHA Plan (5-Year Plan and Annual PHA Plan) and Capital Fund planning. MTW agencies must also report data into HUD data systems, as required.
New protocols and instruments will be developed for assessing an MTW agency's performance and will be incorporated into PHAS and SEMAP, or successor assessment systems, or an alternative assessment system developed by HUD, explained further in Section 6.b. of this Operations Notice. In addition, HUD will employ standard program compliance and monitoring approaches including assessment of relative risk and on-site monitoring conducted by HUD or by entities contracted by HUD.
MTW agencies must adhere to Annual PHA Plan regulations at 24 CFR part 903, any implementing HUD Notices and guidance, as well as any succeeding regulations. The Annual PHA Plan consists of the 5-Year Plan that a PHA must submit to HUD once every five PHA fiscal years and the Annual PHA Plan that the PHA must submit to HUD for each PHA fiscal year. Any HUD assistance that the agency is authorized to use under the MTW demonstration must be used in accordance with the Annual PHA Plan, as applicable.
Annual and 5-Year Plans must be submitted in a format prescribed by HUD. Currently, submission format requirements are outlined in Notice PIH 2015-18 (HA), issued October 23, 2015, which is effective until amended, superseded, or rescinded.
As an MTW agency, all Annual PHA Plan information must be provided in the context of the agency's participation in the MTW demonstration. This includes taking into account the MTW Waiver(s) and associated activity(s) afforded to the MTW agency. To this end, the MTW agency will submit an MTW Supplement to the Annual PHA Plan, in a format to be developed by HUD. Prior to submitting to HUD, the MTW Supplement must go through a public process along with the Annual PHA Plan. This will allow the agency to inform the community of any programmatic changes and give the public an opportunity to comment. Details about this requirement are elaborated later in this section. New MTW agencies will not be required to submit the Annual MTW Plan or Annual MTW Report (
The MTW Supplement form has not been finalized at the time of publishing of this Operations Notice. The MTW Supplement will be made available for public review and comment, per Paperwork Reduction Act requirements, prior to finalizing the form. At this time, HUD plans to require MTW agencies to use the MTW Supplement to the Annual PHA Plan to:
• Describe how the MTW agency seeks to address the three MTW statutory objectives during the coming fiscal year, in a narrative format;
• Indicate the MTW activities that the agency plans to implement in the Annual PHA Plan year that utilize the activities contained in the MTW Waivers (Appendix), and ongoing activities the agency has implemented in the prior year, using a check-box or other simple format;
• Indicate the estimated costs/savings per year for planned activities that have a cost implication;
• Indicate the reason(s) why any previously approved MTW activities were not implemented in the previous year;
• Indicate any changes in the MTW activities and associated waivers, including safe harbors, that have
• Describe any Agency-Specific Waiver Requests that the MTW agency seeks to implement in PHA fiscal year, if applicable;
• Indicate the MTW activities that the agency will undertake in the Annual PHA Plan year that require Cohort-Specific Waivers (as applicable and identified in each cohort's Selection Notice), and the Cohort-Specific Waivers to be used, using a check-box or other simple, non-narrative format;
• Certify to HUD that all MTW activities being implemented by the agency fall within the safe harbors outlined in the Appendix;
• Submit data or information required for the ongoing use of any activities within the MTW Waivers; and
• Submit data required for HUD's verification of the MTW agency's compliance with the five statutory requirements established under the 1996 MTW Statute.
Non-MTW PHAs that are qualified under 24 CFR 903.3(c) and that are not designated as troubled under PHAS and that do not have a failing score under SEMAP are exempt from the requirement to submit the Annual PHA Plan. Per this Operations Notice, while MTW agencies that are qualified under 24 CFR 903.3(c) are not required to submit the Annual PHA Plan, they are required to submit the MTW Supplement to the Annual PHA Plan on an annual basis.
During the agency's initial year of participation in the MTW demonstration, an agency may implement MTW activities once they have been included in an approved MTW Supplement, either during the next regularly scheduled submission of the Annual PHA Plan and MTW Supplement or through an amendment to the Annual PHA Plan, which would include the MTW Supplement. Agency-Specific Waiver Requests and activities may only be implemented after explicit written approval from HUD.
MTW agencies must submit to HUD the Annual PHA Plan, including any required attachments, and the MTW Supplement no later than seventy-five (75) days prior to the start of the agency's fiscal year. Before submission to HUD, the agency must have at least a 45-day public review period of its plan, after publishing a notice informing the public of its availability and conducting reasonable outreach to encourage participation in the plan process, followed by a public hearing. MTW agencies must consider, in consultation with the RABs, all of the comments received at the public hearing. The recommendations received by the public and RABs must be submitted by the agency as a required attachment to the Plan. MTW agencies must also include a narrative describing their analysis of the recommendations and the decisions made on these recommendations. Agencies must also obtain the proper signed certifications and board certification.
HUD will notify the MTW agency in writing if HUD objects to any provisions or information in the Annual PHA Plan or the MTW Supplement. When the MTW agency submits its Plan seventy-five (75) days in advance of its fiscal year, HUD will respond to the MTW agency within 75 days.
Reviews of the Annual PHA Plan and the MTW Supplement will be conducted by the local field office, in consultation with the MTW Office.
The MTW agency must update its ACOP and Administrative Plan to be consistent with the MTW activities and related waivers that it implements. The agency may not implement an MTW activity or waiver until the relevant sections of the ACOP and/or Administrative Plan are updated. MTW agencies must provide HUD with electronic versions of the ACOP and Administrative Plan upon request. If the MTW agency implements an activity using the local, non-traditional uses of funds waiver, the MTW agency must create and update an implementing document specifically for such activity.
MTW agencies must adhere to CFP regulations at 24 CFR part 905, any implementing HUD Notices and guidance, as well as any successor regulations. As noted previously, MTW agencies are funded in accordance with CFP regulations and formula funds are calculated and distributed in the same manner as non-MTW agencies.
MTW agencies have the authority and flexibility to utilize their CFP funds for expanded uses as part of their MTW funding flexibility. HUD will award Capital Fund grants to MTW agencies in keeping with the standard process for all PHAs. The Field Office will distribute funds in Line of Credit Control System (LOCCS) to the MTW agencies in accordance with the standard process. As with all PHAs, an MTW agency may draw down Capital Funds from HUD only when such funds are due and payable, unless HUD approves another payment schedule. To the extent that the MTW agency plans to use CFP funding for other MTW-eligible (non-CFP) activities, the CFP funding would be recorded on BLI 1492 (Moving to Work) on Form HUD-50075.1. CFP funds entered on BLI 1492 would not need to be broken out and itemized in the part II supporting pages of the HUD-50075.1. However, regardless of the BLI utilized, funds may not be drawn down until the PHA has an immediate need for the funds. An MTW agency may not accelerate drawdowns of funds in order to fund reserves or to otherwise increase locally held amounts, as discussed in 4(a)(i)(b)(2) of this Notice.
An MTW agency is not required to use all or any portion of its CFP grant for non-CFP activities. To the extent that the MTW agency wishes to dedicate all or a portion of its CFP grant to specific capital improvements, the agency shall record CFP funding on the appropriate BLI(s) on Form HUD-50075.1 (other than BLI 1492) as in the standard program.
Data from HUD's Inventory Management System (IMS) and Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Information Center (PIC), or successor systems, is critical to all aspects of program administration, including HUD monitoring and tracking of MTW agency progress in meeting the MTW statutory objectives. IMS/PIC data is used to establish funding eligibility levels for both Operating Subsidy Fund and Capital Fund grants. Further, HUD relies on IMS/PIC data to provide a thorough and comprehensive view of PHA program performance and compliance.
MTW agencies are required to submit the following information to HUD via IMS/PIC (or its successor system):
• Family data to IMS/PIC using Form HUD-50058 MTW (or successor forms) or Form HUD-50058 and in compliance with HUD's 50058 MTW or standard 50058 submission requirements for MTW agencies. MTW agencies must report information on all families receiving some form of tenant-based or project-based housing assistance, either directly or indirectly, as well as all public housing families, to be current to at least a 95 percent level.
• Current building and unit information in the development module of IMS/PIC (or successor system).
• Basic data about the PHA (address, phone number, email address, etc.).
HUD will monitor MTW agency reporting to IMS/PIC (or successor system) to ensure compliance and provide technical assistance to MTW agencies as needed.
MTW agencies are required to report voucher utilization in the Voucher Management System (VMS), or its successor system. There are several areas in which VMS reporting is different for MTW agencies. These areas are highlighted in the VMS User's Manual (
HUD will monitor each MTW agency's VMS reporting to ensure compliance and provide technical assistance to MTW agencies as needed.
In addition to the reporting requirements outlined in this Operations Notice, MTW agencies are required to comply with any and all HUD reporting requirements not specifically waived by HUD for participation in the MTW demonstration program, including the requirement (discussed in Section 5) to comply with HUD's evaluation of the specific-policy changes being implemented by cohort.
Assessing the performance of PHAs (both MTW and non-MTW) helps with the delivery of services in the public housing and voucher programs and enhances trust among PHAs, public housing participants, HUD, and the general public. To facilitate this effort, HUD will provide management tools for effectively and fairly assessing the performance of a PHA in essential housing operations and program administration.
Currently, HUD uses PHAS and SEMAP to assess risk and identify underperforming PHAs in the traditional public housing and voucher programs. However, since some of the MTW flexibilities make it difficult to accurately assess the performance of MTW agencies under the existing systems, HUD will develop an alternative, MTW-specific assessment system, which may be incorporated into PHAS and SEMAP (or successor assessment system(s)). MTW agencies may not opt out of the MTW-specific successor system(s). Until the successor system is implemented, HUD will monitor MTW agency performance through PHAS sub-scores.
MTW agencies are scored in PHAS, however, agencies can elect not to receive the overall score (MTW agencies continue to receive PHAS sub-scores even if they elect not to receive the overall score). If an MTW agency elects to receive its overall PHAS score, the agency must continue to be scored for the duration of the demonstration, or until the agency is assessed under the alternative, MTW-specific assessment system(s), whichever comes first. Once developed, all MTW agencies, including MTW agencies that elect not to receive an overall PHAS score, must be assessed under the MTW-specific assessment system(s).
Per the 1996 MTW statute, when providing public housing, the MTW agency must ensure that the housing is safe, decent, sanitary, and in good repair, according to the physical inspection protocols established and approved by HUD. Thus, MTW agencies continue to be subject to HUD physical inspections. To the extent that HUD physical inspections reveal deficiencies, the MTW agency must continue to address these deficiencies in accordance with existing physical inspection requirements. If an MTW agency does not maintain public housing adequately, as evidenced by the physical inspection performed by HUD and is determined to be troubled in this area, HUD will determine appropriate remedial actions. The actions to be taken by HUD and the agency will include actions statutorily required and such other actions as may be determined appropriate by HUD. These actions may include developing and executing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the MTW agency, suspension or termination of the MTW CACC Amendment in accordance with the provisions therein, or such other actions legally available to the Department.
MTW agencies must continue to submit year-end financial information into the Financial Data System (FDS) or successor system, as discussed earlier.
MTW agencies are not scored in SEMAP but they can elect to be scored if they choose to opt in. If an MTW agency elects to receive its overall SEMAP score, the agency must continue to be scored for the duration of the demonstration, or until the agency is assessed under the MTW-specific assessment system, whichever comes first. Once developed, all MTW agencies, including MTW agencies that opt out of SEMAP, must be assessed under the MTW-specific assessment system(s).
MTW agencies remain subject to the full range of HUD monitoring and oversight efforts including, but not limited to, annual risk assessments, on-site monitoring reviews, monitoring reviews relating to VMS reporting and rent reasonableness, review of the accuracy of data reported into HUD data systems, and use of HUD data systems to assess agency program performance, among other activities.
Throughout participation in the MTW demonstration program, all MTW agencies must continue to meet five statutory requirements established under the 1996 MTW Statute. Implementation, monitoring and enforcement of the five statutory requirements will be discussed in greater detail in the final version of this Operations Notice, and specific enforcement processes will be included in the MTW CACC Amendment (see also, section 11 of this Notice). HUD will monitor and determine MTW agencies' compliance with these five requirements as follows:
(a) MTW agencies must ensure that at least 75 percent of the families assisted are very low-income families, in each fiscal year, as defined in section 3(b)(2) of the 1937 Act.
(i) HUD Verification Approach: Initial household certification data recorded in PIC will be used for both the public housing and HCV programs for compliance monitoring purposes. The initial certification is comprised only of new admissions in the agency's given fiscal year. Initial household certification data for families housed through local, non-traditional activities (in accordance with the Appendix) will be provided in a manner specified by the Department. An agency's portfolio will then be weighted with respect to the number of households being served by each housing program type (
(b) MTW agencies must establish a reasonable rent policy which shall be designed to encourage employment and self-sufficiency by participating families, consistent with the purpose of this demonstration, such as by excluding some or all of a family's earned income for purposes of determining rent.
(i) HUD Verification Approach: HUD defines rent reform as any change in the regulations on how rent is calculated for a household. Upon designation into the MTW demonstration, agencies are to submit their planned policy to implement a reasonable rent policy in the MTW Supplement. All activities falling under the Tenant Rent Policies category, detailed in the Appendix, meet the definition of a reasonable rent
(c) MTW agencies must continue to assist substantially the same total number of eligible low-income families as would have been served had the amounts not been combined.
(i) HUD Verification Approach: HUD continues to consider the best approach to monitor the MTW statutory requirement that MTW agencies serve substantially the same number of families absent the demonstration. The main themes and principles for this effort include a Substantially the Same (STS) methodology that: Ensures substantially the same number of families are housed; allows for local flexibility; is responsive to changing budgetary climates; is feasible for HUD to administer; is easy for MTW agencies to predict compliance; is straight forward to understand; is calculated each year; and has publicly available results. First, the STS methodology would establish a baseline ratio of dollars the agency expends and families housed. Before an agency enters the MTW demonstration, the public housing funding and the HCV HAP funding spent by the agency in the prior CY would be divided by the current number of families housed in each program. This calculation would yield how many families the agency houses per $100,000 of funding in both the public housing and HCV programs. Each year during an agency's participation in the MTW demonstration, the baseline number of total families housed per $100,000 of funding in both the public housing and HCV programs would be applied to the agency's actual funding for that calendar year. So, for example, the agency would know that if it is appropriated “x number of dollars,” it would be required to house “y number of families.” Depending on the specific circumstances of the agency, a dip below the baseline year number would be allowed. HUD is exploring methods to ensure that the ratio of families housed per $100,000 in the baseline year continues to be an accurate measure of “substantially the same” service levels in future years of the MTW designation. There would also be opportunities for PHAs to request adjustments of the baseline ratio to account for changes in costs due to special circumstances.
The following is an example of the STS baseline ratio calculation:
• Agency expends $800,000 in HCV HAP funds and houses 100 HCV families. Agency then houses 12.5 HCV families per $100,000 of HCV funds.
• Agency expends $500,000 in public housing funds and houses 75 public housing families. Agency then houses 15 public housing families per $100,000 public housing funds.
• MTW agency receives $900,000 in HCV HAP funds and $300,000 in public housing funds.
• MTW agency must house 112.5 families for the HCV share and 45 families for the public housing share. Therefore, in this example, the MTW agency is required to house 157 total families flexibly with its MTW funds (this may be in the public housing program, the HCV program, a local, non-traditional rental subsidy program, or a local, non-traditional development program
(d) MTW agencies must maintain a comparable mix of families (by family size) as would have been provided had the amounts not been used under the demonstration.
(i) HUD Verification Approach: In order to establish a comparable mix baseline, the Department will pull data, by family size, for occupied public housing units and leased vouchers at the time of entry into the demonstration. The Department will rely upon agency-reported data into HUD systems (
(e) MTW agencies must ensure that housing assisted under the demonstration meets housing quality standards established or approved by the Secretary.
(i) HUD Verification Approach: In order to demonstrate that the MTW agency meets housing quality standards, HUD will verify compliance for each housing program type as follows:
• HCV—Program regulations at 24 CFR part 982 set forth basic housing quality standards (HQS) for housing assisted under the HCV program. These housing quality standards, or its successor regulations, are the standards used to determine if the agency is fulfilling its responsibilities to ensure owners are maintaining the units in accordance with HQS in the evaluation of an agency. Agencies with an HCV program must certify in the MTW Supplement that they have fulfilled their responsibilities to comply with and ensure enforcement of HQS under this requirement.
• Public Housing—HUD will verify this requirement through its review of PHAS Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores, or successor assessment system. Scores falling below 24 out of 40 will be identified as non-compliant with the statutory requirement.
• Local, Non-Traditional—In the MTW Supplement, MTW Agencies must certify that local, non-traditional units meet housing quality standards as required in PIH Notice 2011-45, or successor notice.
MTW agencies are required to comply with the final rule regarding EIV issued December 29, 2009, and utilize EIV for all income verifications. EIV has been modified for MTW agencies so that family information submitted in PIC will not expire for 40 months, in order to accommodate agencies choosing to extend recertification periods for up to three years.
MTW agencies are subject to HUD review to ensure compliance with EIV requirements as well as monitor the accuracy and integrity of the MTW agencies' income and rent determination policies, procedures, and outcomes.
HUD will periodically conduct site visits to provide guidance, discuss the MTW agency's MTW activities, and offer any needed technical assistance regarding its program. The purpose of a
The MTW agency shall give HUD access, at reasonable times and places, to all requested sources of information, including access to files, access to units, and an opportunity to interview agency staff and assisted participants.
Where travel funding or staff resources are not available to facilitate in-person site visits, HUD may exercise the option to conduct remote site visits via telephone, videoconference, or webinar.
To the extent possible, HUD will coordinate the MTW site visit with other site visits to be conducted by HUD.
HUD will monitor HCV utilization at MTW agencies and will ensure that HCV funds are utilized in accordance with Section 4(a)(i)(c) and Section 6(c)(i)(c) of this Notice. Where leasing levels are inconsistent with the requirements of this Notice, HUD may take appropriate actions to work with the MTW agency to increase leasing and utilization.
HUD will monitor public housing occupancy rates for MTW agencies. In instances where the MTW agency's public housing occupancy rate falls below 96 percent, HUD may require, at its discretion, that the MTW agency enter into an Occupancy Action Plan to address the occupancy issues. The Occupancy Action Plan will include the cause of the occupancy issue, the intended solution, and reasonable timeframes to address the cause of the occupancy issue.
HUD may, based on the MTW agency's risks and at HUD's discretion, conduct management, programmatic, financial, or other reviews of the MTW agency. The MTW agency shall respond to any findings with appropriate corrective action(s).
In addition, HUD will make use of all HUD data systems and available information to conduct ongoing remote monitoring and oversight actions for MTW agencies, consistent with the results of the PIH risk assessment.
MTW agencies converting public housing program units to Section 8 assistance under the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program are able to retain MTW regulatory and statutory flexibilities in the management of those units, subject to RAD requirements, if the conversion is to Project Based Voucher (PBV) assistance. MTW agencies converting projects under RAD to PBV may continue to undertake flexibilities except to the extent limited by RAD, as described in the RAD Notice, PIH 2012-32, REV-3, or its successor Notice.
Special Purpose Vouchers (SPVs) are specifically provided for by Congress in line item appropriations, which distinguish them from regular vouchers. Except for enhanced vouchers and tenant-protection vouchers (described below), SPVs are not part of the MTW demonstration and are not part of the MTW agency's total available flexible MTW Funding. The funding is renewed outside of the MTW HAP renewal formula and the funding (both the initial increment and renewal funding) for the SPVs may only be used for eligible SPV purposes. There are no additional MTW flexibilities around using MTW funds to cover SPV shortfalls. MTW PHAs may use non-HAP sources to cover shortfalls, following the procedures outlined in Notice PIH 2013-28. PHAs already have the ability to use HAP reserve funds to address SPV instances of shortfalls, where the SPVs are under the same appropriations allocation for renewal as their Section 8 vouchers.
HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) vouchers have separate operating requirements and must be administered in accordance with the requirements listed at
The Family Unification Program (FUP) NOFA language allows vouchers to be administered in accordance with MTW operations, unless MTW provisions are inconsistent with the appropriations act or requirements of the FUP NOFA. In the event of a conflict between the Operations Notice and the appropriations act or FUP NOFA language, the act and NOFA govern.
The Non-Elderly Persons with Disabilities (NED) NOFA language allows vouchers to be administered in accordance with MTW operations unless MTW provisions are inconsistent with the appropriations act or requirements of the NED NOFA. In the event of a conflict between the Operations Notice and the appropriations act or FUP NOFA language, the act and NOFA govern.
Enhanced and tenant protection voucher funds become fungible once the initial funding increment is renewed. The agency must continue to provide rental assistance to enhanced voucher families and tenant protection voucher families after the initial funding increment is renewed.
The statutory enhanced voucher requirements under Section 8(t) of the 1937 Act (
Regular tenant protection vouchers (
Notwithstanding the MTW Waivers and associated activities provided in this Operations Notice, the following provisions of the 1937 Act continue to apply to MTW agencies and the assistance received pursuant to the 1937 Act:
i. The terms “low-income families” and “very low-income families” shall continue to be defined by reference to Section 3(b)(2) of the 1937 Act (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(2));
ii. Section 12 of the 1937 Act (42 U.S.C. 1437j), as amended, shall apply to housing assisted under the demonstration, other than housing assisted solely due to occupancy by families receiving tenant-based assistance;
iii. Section 18 of the 1937 Act (42 U.S.C. l437p, as amended by Section 1002(d) of Pub. L. 104-19, Section 201(b)(1) of Pub. L. 104-134, and Section 201(b) of Pub. L. 104-202), governing demolition and disposition, shall continue to apply to public housing notwithstanding any use of the housing under MTW; and
iv. Section 8(r)(1) of the 1937 Act on HCV portability shall continue to apply unless provided as a cohort-specific waiver and associated activity(s) in an evaluative cohort as necessary to implement comprehensive rent reform and occupancy policies. Such a cohort-specific waiver and associated activity(s) would contain, at a minimum, exceptions for requests to port due to employment, education, health and safety, and reasonable accommodation.
Notwithstanding any requirement contained in this Notice or any MTW Waiver and associated activity granted herein, other Federal, state and local requirements applicable to public housing or HCV assistance will continue to apply. The MTW CACC Amendment will place in HUD the authority to determine if any future law or future regulation conflicts with any MTW-related agreement or Notice. If a future law conflicts, the law shall be implemented, and no breach of contract claim, or any claim for monetary damages, may result from the conflict or implementation of the conflicting law or regulation.
If any non-1937 Act requirement applicable to PHAs, public housing, or HCV assistance contains a provision that conflicts or is inconsistent with any MTW Waiver and associated activity granted by HUD, the agency remains subject to the terms of that non-1937 Act requirement. Such requirements include, but are not limited to:
• Requirements for Federal Funds: Notwithstanding the flexibilities described in this Notice, the public housing and voucher funding provided to MTW agencies remain Federal funds and are subject to any and all other Federal requirements outside of the 1937 Act (
• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): MTW agencies must comply with NEPA, 24 CFR part 50 or Part 58, as applicable, and other related Federal laws and authorities identified in 24 CFR. Part 50 or Part 58, as applicable. Information and guidance on the environmental review process and requirements is provided in PIH Notice 2016-22, or successor notice.
• Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity: As with the administration of all HUD programs and all HUD-assisted activities, fair housing, and civil rights issues apply to the administration of MTW demonstration programs. This includes actions and policies that may have a discriminatory effect on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, disability, or familial status (see 24 CFR part 1 and Part 100 subpart G) or that may impede, obstruct, prevent, or undermine efforts to affirmatively further fair housing. Annual PHA Plans must include a civil rights certification required by Section 5A of the 1937 Act and implemented by regulation at 24 CFR 903.7(o) and 903.15, as well as a statement of the PHA's strategies and actions to achieve fair housing goals outlined in an approved Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with 24 CFR 5.154. If the PHA does not have a HUD-accepted AFH, it must still provide a civil rights certification and statement of the PHA's fair housing strategies, which would be informed by the corresponding jurisdiction's AFH and the PHA's assessment of its own operations.
All PHAs, including MTW agencies, are obligated to comply with non-discrimination and equal opportunity laws and implementing regulation, including those in 24 CFR 5.105. Specific laws and regulations must be viewed in their entirety for full compliance, as this Operations Notice does not incorporate a complete discussion of all legal authorities. For example, PHAs, including MTW agencies, are required to comply with the Fair Housing Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, Executive Order 11063: Equal Opportunity in Housing, Executive Order 13166: Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, HUD's Equal Access Rule (24 CFR 5.105(a)(2), Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, as well as HUD and government-wide regulations implementing these authorities. PHAs should review PIH Notice 2011-31 for more details.
• Court Orders and Voluntary Compliance Agreements: MTW agencies must comply with the terms of any applicable court orders or Voluntary Compliance Agreements that are in existence or may come into existence during the term of the MTW CACC Amendment. The PHA must cooperate fully with any investigation by the HUD Office of Inspector General or any other investigative and law enforcement agencies of the U.S. Government.
The 39 MTW agencies that entered the MTW demonstration prior to the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute adhere to an administrative structure outlined in the Standard MTW Agreement, a contract between each current agency and HUD. The 2016 MTW Expansion Statute extended the term of the Standard MTW Agreement for these existing MTW agencies through each agency's 2028 fiscal year.
Some agencies that entered the MTW demonstration prior to the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute may wish to opt out of their Standard MTW Agreement and administer their MTW program pursuant to the MTW Expansion and the requirements in this MTW Operations Notice. HUD will support an existing MTW agency's request to join the MTW Expansion provided that the agency:
• Makes the change at the end of its fiscal year, so that it does not have part of a fiscal year under the Standard Agreement and part under the Operations Notice;
• Follows the same public comment and Board resolution process as would
• Executes its MTW CACC Amendment to authorize participation in the MTW demonstration consistent with the Operations Notice; and
• Agrees to all the terms and conditions that apply to MTW agencies admitted pursuant to the 2016 MTW Expansion Statute, including all of the provisions of this Operations Notice and the accompanying MTW CACC Amendment.
Should an existing MTW agency elect to administer its MTW program pursuant to the framework described in this Operations Notice, it will not be required to implement the cohort-specific policy change associated with any of the MTW cohorts and it will not be required to participate in the evaluation of that specific policy change. All other requirements in this Operations Notice will apply.
If the MTW agency violates any of the requirements outlined in this Notice, HUD is authorized to take any corrective or remedial action permitted by law. Sanctions, terminations, and default are covered in the agency's MTW CACC Amendment.
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment was made for a previous version of this Notice in accordance with HUD regulations in 24 CFR part 50 that implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI is applicable to the current version of the Notice because there were no significant changes to the provisions of the Notice. The FONSI will be available for public inspection on
The Appendix contains the Moving to Work (MTW) Waivers and their associated MTW activities. The Appendix includes the waiver name, waiver description, statutes and regulations waived, permissible activities, and safe harbors. The waiver description defines the authorization provided to the MTW agency, subject to the terms of this Notice. The statutory and regulatory citations that may be waived by an MTW agency in order to implement an activity are included below the activity. The list of waivers and list of activities are organized by program type. The safe harbors contain the additional requirements (beyond those specified in the activity description) the agency must follow in order to implement the activity without additional HUD approval. If an MTW agency wishes to implement additional activities, request additional waivers, or request the ability to go beyond an MTW activity's safe harbor(s), the MTW agency must submit an agency-specific waiver request for approval from HUD as explained further in Section 2.b of the MTW Operations Notice.
Specific guidelines for safe harbors on impact analyses, applicability to elderly/disabled families and hardship policies are provided at the end of this appendix. Information on impact analyses is denoted with a “*”, information on elderly/disabled families is denoted with a “**” and information on hardship policies is denoted with a “***.”
* Safe Harbor: Impact Analysis.
** Safe Harbor: Elderly/Disabled Families.
*** Safe Harbor: Hardship Policy.
The MTW agency must analyze and put into the writing the various impacts of the MTW activity. The MTW agency must prepare this analysis (1) prior to implementation of the MTW activity; (2) at minimum, on an annual basis during the implementation of the MTW activity; and (3) at the time the MTW activity is closed out.
This analysis must consider the following eight factors:
1. Impact on the agency's finances (
2. Impact on affordability of housing costs for affected families (
3. Impact on the agency's waitlist(s) (
4. Impact on the agency's termination rate of families (
5. Impact on the agency's current occupancy level in public housing and utilization rate in the HCV program;
6. Impact on the agency's ability to meet the MTW statutory requirements;
7. Impact on the community (
8. Across the other factors above, the impact on protected classes (and any associated disparate impact).
The MTW agency must have the initial impact analysis, which analyzes potential impacts of the MTW activity, available during the applicable public review period prior to implementation of the MTW activity. The agency must supply the annual impact analysis and/or the final impact analysis of the closed-out activity (if applicable), which analyzes actual impact of the MTW activity, at HUD's request. This information must be retained by the agency for the duration of the agency's participation in the MTW demonstration program and available for public review and inspection at the agency's principal office during normal business hours.
The MTW activity must not apply to elderly families and disabled families as defined in 24 CFR 5.403 or the MTW agency's approved definition under its MTW program.
The MTW agency must adopt written policies for determining when a requirement or provision of the MTW activity constitutes a financial or other hardship for the family.
The agency shall make the determination of whether a financial or other hardship exists within a reasonable time after the family request. If the agency determines that a financial or other hardship exists, the PHA must immediately provide an exemption from the MTW activity at a reasonable level and duration, according to the agency's written policies. Residents must be notified of the agency's hardship policy.
The agency's written policies for determining what constitutes financial hardship must include the following situations:
• The family has experienced a decrease in income because of changed circumstances, including loss or reduction of employment, death in the family, or reduction in or loss of earnings or other assistance;
• The family has experienced an increase in expenses, because of changed circumstances, for medical costs, child care, transportation, education, or similar items; and
• Such other situations and factors determined by the agency to be appropriate.
The agency's written policies shall include a grievance procedure that a family may request for second level review of denied hardship requests.
The agency shall keep records of all hardship requests received and the results of these requests, and supply them at HUD's request. This information must be retained by the agency for the duration of the agency's participation in the MTW program and available for public review and inspection at the agency's principal office during normal business hours.
The protections for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, apply. The protections for persons requesting a reasonable accommodation under 24 CFR part 8 also apply.
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 13, 2018.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Keith Pardieck by email at
We, the USGS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the USGS; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the USGS enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the USGS minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to institute a modification and rescission proceeding. The Commission has further determined to grant a joint petition to modify in part a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) as to Respondent VIZIO, Inc. (“VIZIO”) and to rescind the cease and desist order (“CDO”) against VIZIO, based on a settlement agreement. The Commission has issued a modified LEO. The modification and rescission proceeding is terminated.
Houda Morad, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4716. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Commission instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1044 on March 22, 2017, based on a complaint filed by Complainants Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California and ATI Technologies ULC of Canada (collectively, “AMD” or “Complainants”).
On October 20, 2017, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued an initial determination terminating the investigation as to LG based on settlement.
On April 13, 2018, the ALJ issued her final initial determination (“FID”) finding a violation of section 337 with respect to the '506 patent. On August 22, 2018, the Commission affirmed with modification the FID's findings.
On September 11, 2018, Complainants and VIZIO filed a joint petition (
In view of the settlement agreement between Complainants and VIZIO, the Commission finds that the conditions justifying the remedial orders against Respondent VIZIO no longer exist, and therefore, granting the petition is warranted under 19 U.S.C. 1337(k) and 19 CFR 210.76(a). Accordingly, the Commission has determined to institute a modification and rescission proceeding. The Commission has further determined to grant the joint petition to modify in part the LEO as to VIZIO and to rescind the CDO against VIZIO. The Commission has issued a modified LEO. The modification and rescission proceeding is terminated.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
September 26, 2018.
Robert Casanova (202) 708-2719, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Effective March 8, 2018, the Commission established a general schedule for the conduct of the final phase of its investigations on polytetrafluoroethylene resin from China and India,
This supplemental schedule is as follows: The deadline for filing supplemental party comments on Commerce's final antidumping duty determinations is October 11, 2018. Supplemental party comments may address only Commerce's final antidumping duty determinations regarding imports of PTFE resin from China and India. These supplemental final comments may not contain new factual information and may not exceed five (5) pages in length. The supplemental staff report in the final phase of these investigations regarding subject imports from China and India
For further information concerning these investigations see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Juul Labs, Inc., on October 3, 2018. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic nicotine delivery systems and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents: J Well France S.A.S. of France; Bo Vaping of Garden City, NY; MMS Distribution LLC of Rock Hill, NY; The Electric Tobacconist, LLC of Boulder, CO; Eonsmoke, LLC of Clifton, NJ; ZLab S.A. of Uruguay; Ziip Lab Co., Limited of China; Shenzhen Yibo Technology Co., Ltd. of China; XFire, Inc. of Stafford, TX; ALD Group Limited of China; Flair Vapor LLC of South Plainfield, NJ; Shenzhen Joecig Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Myle Vape Inc. of Jamaica, NY: Vapor Hub International, Inc. of Simi Valley, CA; Limitless Mod Co. of Simi Valley CA; Infinite-N Technology Limited of China; King Distribution LLC of Elmwood Park, NJ; and Keep Vapor Electronic Tech. Co., Ltd. of China. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders and impose a bond during the 60-day review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice of a closed meeting of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations.
The meeting will be held on October 26, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at Segal Consulting, 333 W 34th St., New York, NY 10001.
Elizabeth Van Osten, Designated Federal Officer, Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations, at 202-317-3648.
Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will meet at Segal Consulting, 333 W 34th St., New York, NY 10001, on October 26, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions that may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics, pension law and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B).
A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that the subject of the meeting falls within the exception to the open meeting requirement set forth in Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such meeting be closed to public participation.
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
Notice of renewal of Advisory Committee.
The Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries announces the renewal of the charter of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations.
Thomas V. Curtin, Jr., Executive Director, at
The purpose of the Advisory Committee on Examinations (Advisory Committee) is to advise the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries (Joint Board) on examinations in actuarial mathematics and methodology. The Joint Board administers such examinations in discharging its statutory mandate to enroll individuals who wish to perform actuarial services with respect to pension plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Advisory Committee's functions include, but are not necessarily limited to, considering and recommending examination topics, developing examination questions, recommending proposed examinations and pass marks, and as requested by the Joint Board, making recommendations relative to the examination program.
Notice is hereby given that, on September 6, 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, ASME 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 Attorney General was filed on January 25, 2018. A notice was filed in the
Notice is hereby given that, on September 17, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
In addition, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC; and China Mobile Communication Company Ltd., Beijing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA were reported in error on the last filing as parties who had withdrawn from this venture. SAS Institute, Inc. and China Mobile Communication Company Ltd. remain 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 ODPi intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 23, 2015, ODPi 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 6, 2018. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that on September 7, 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 May 21, 2018. A notice was filed in the
On October 4, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed this lawsuit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The United States' complaint names NL Industries, Inc. as the Defendant. The complaint seeks recovery of costs that the United States incurred responding to releases of hazardous substances at the Big River Mine Tailings Superfund Site in St. Francois County, Missouri. The complaint also seeks injunctive relief in the form of the performance of the selected remedy for Operable Unit 01 of the Site.
The Consent Decree requires the defendant to pay $13 million of the United States' response costs. In return for the Defendant's commitments, the United States agrees not to sue the Defendant under sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA and Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”).
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Under Section 7003(d) of RCRA, a commenter may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area.
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $4.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
The Secretary of Labor is announcing the renewal of a Federal Advisory Committee. In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the Secretary of Labor has determined that the renewal of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Data Users Advisory Committee (the “Committee”) is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Commissioner of Labor Statistics by 29 U.S.C. 1 and 2. This determination follows consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration.
The Committee provides advice to the Bureau of Labor Statistics from the points of view of data users from various sectors of the U.S. economy, including the labor, business, research, academic and government communities, on matters related to the analysis, dissemination, and use of the Bureau's statistics, on its published reports, and on gaps between or the need for new Bureau statistics.
The Committee will function solely as an advisory body to the BLS, on technical topics selected by the BLS.
The Committee is responsible for providing the Commissioner of Labor Statistics: (1) The priorities of data users; (2) suggestions concerning the addition of new programs, changes in the emphasis of existing programs or cessation of obsolete programs; and (3) advice on potential innovations in data analysis, dissemination and presentation.
The Committee reports to the Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.
The Committee will not exceed 20 members. Committee members are nominated by the Commissioner of Labor Statistics and approved by the Secretary of Labor. Membership of the Committee will represent a balance of expertise across a broad range of BLS program areas, including employment and unemployment statistics, occupational safety and health statistics, compensation measures, price indexes, and productivity measures; or other areas related to the subject matter of BLS programs. All committee members will have extensive research or practical experience using BLS data.
The Committee will function solely as an advisory body, in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Charter will be filed under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The Secretary of Labor is announcing the renewal of a Federal Advisory Committee. In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the Secretary of Labor has determined that the renewal of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Technical Advisory Committee (the “Committee”) is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Commissioner of Labor Statistics by 29 U.S.C. 1 and 2. This determination follows consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration.
The Committee presents advice and makes recommendations to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on technical aspects of the collection and formulation of economic measures.
The Committee functions solely as an advisory body to the BLS, on technical topics selected by the BLS. Important aspects of the Committee's responsibilities include, but are not limited to:
a. Provide comments on papers and presentations developed by BLS research and program staff. The comments will address the technical soundness of the research and whether it reflects best practices in the relevant fields.
b. Recommend that BLS conduct research projects to address technical problems with BLS statistics that have been identified in the academic literature.
c. Participate in discussions of areas where the types or coverage of economic statistics could be expanded or improved and areas where statistics are no longer relevant.
The Committee reports to the Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.
The Committee consists of approximately sixteen members who serve as Special Government Employees. Members are appointed by the BLS and are approved by the Secretary of Labor. Committee members are economists, statisticians, and behavioral scientists and are chosen to achieve a balanced membership across those disciplines. They are prominent experts in their fields and recognized for their professional achievements and objectivity.
The Committee will function solely as an advisory body, in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Charter will be filed under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Renewal of the NACOSH charter.
The Secretary of Labor (Secretary) has renewed the charter for NACOSH.
Ms. Michelle Walker, OSHA Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; telephone (202) 693-2350 (TTY (877) 889-5627); email
The Secretary has renewed the NACOSH charter. The charter will expire on October 3, 2020.
Congress established NACOSH in Section 7(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651, 656) to advise, consult with and make recommendations to the Secretary and the Secretary of Health and Human Services on matters relating to the administration of the OSH Act. NACOSH is a non-discretionary advisory committee of indefinite duration.
NACOSH operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2), its implementing regulations (41 CFR part 102-3), OSHA's regulations on NACOSH (29 CFR part 1912a), Secretary of Labor's Order 04-2018 (6/1/2018), and Chapter 1600 of Department of Labor Manual Series 3 (7/18/2016). Pursuant to FACA (5 U.S.C. App. 2, 14(b)(2)), the NACOSH charter must be renewed every two years.
The new charter includes updates of the procedures for appointment of individuals to Department of Labor advisory committees and increases the estimated annual operating costs for NACOSH by approximately 3 percent (to $192,000 from $186,500).
The new NACOSH charter is available to read or download at
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice under the authority granted by 29 U.S.C. 656; 5 U.S.C. App. 2; 29 CFR part 1912a; 41 CFR part 102-3; and Secretary of Labor's Orders No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912 (1/25/2012)) and 04-2018 (6/1/2018).
National Endowment for the Arts.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the National Council on the Arts will be held. This meeting is open to the public on a space available basis.
See the
National Museum of Women in the Arts, Performance Hall, Fifth Floor, 1250 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005.
Victoria Hutter, Office of Public Affairs, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, at 202/682-5570.
If, in the course of the open session discussion, it becomes necessary for the Council to discuss non-public commercial or financial information of intrinsic value, the Council will go into closed session pursuant to subsection (c)(4) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b, and in accordance with the July 5, 2016 determination of the Chairman. Additionally, discussion concerning purely personal information about individuals, such as personal biographical and salary data or medical information, may be conducted by the Council in closed session in accordance with subsection (c)(6) of 5 U.S.C. 552b.
Any interested persons may attend, as observers, to Council discussions and reviews that are open to the public. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Beth Bienvenu, Office of Accessibility, National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-5733, Voice/T.T.Y. 202-682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
This meeting and activities will be open.
There will be opening remarks and voting on recommendations for grant funding and rejection, followed by updates from the Acting Chairman and guest presentations.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Indirect transfer of license; corrected Orders.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Orders
The application sought NRC approval of the indirect transfer of Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12 and Combined License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for Summer, Units 1, 2, and 3 and the general license for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), from the ultimate parent, SCANA Corporation, to Dominion Energy. The NRC's approval of the indirect license transfer is subject to certain conditions, which are described in the Orders. No physical changes to the facility or operational changes were proposed in the application. The Orders were effective upon issuance.
The Orders were issued on September 24, 2018, and are effective for one year.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0043 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Shawn Williams, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1009; email:
The text of the Orders is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) and the South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper) are the holders of Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12 and the general license for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Unit No. 1 and the ISFSI. SCE&G is the licensed operator of VCSNS, Unit 1 and the ISFSI. SCE&G is a wholly owned subsidiary of SCANA Corporation (SCANA). VCSNS is located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.
By application dated January 25, 2018, SCE&G, acting for itself and its parent company, SCANA, and Dominion Energy, Inc. (Dominion Energy) (together, the Applicants) requested, pursuant to Title 10 of the
The proposed indirect license transfer would facilitate a merger between Dominion Energy and SCANA, the parent company of SCE&G. The transaction would be effected through the merger of SCANA and Sedona Corp. (Sedona), which is a South Carolina corporation and subsidiary of Dominion Energy formed for the sole purpose of merging with SCANA. Sedona would be merged with and into SCANA, with SCANA remaining as the surviving corporation, which will be a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Dominion Energy.
Approval of the indirect transfer of the Renewed Facility Operating License and ISFSI was requested by SCE&G and Dominion Energy. A notice entitled, “Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 2, and 3, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License,” was published in the
Under 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the NRC gives its consent in writing. After the indirect transfer, SCE&G would remain a wholly owned subsidiary of SCANA, which in turn would become a wholly owned subsidiary of Dominion Energy. SCE&G would remain the licensed co-owner and operator of VCSNS, Unit 1 and the ISFSI. Upon review of the information in the application, and other information before the Commission, the NRC staff has determined that the Applicants are qualified to hold the licenses to the extent proposed to permit the indirect transfer. The NRC staff has also determined that indirect transfer of the licenses, as described in the application, is otherwise consistent with the applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the
On August 30, 2018, the Commission issued, “Order Approving Indirect Transfer of Licenses,” for VCSNS, Unit No. 1 and the ISFSI. Subsequently, the NRC staff determined that corrections were needed to the cover letter, Orders, and the safety evaluation. This Order contains the correction and supersedes the VCSNS, Unit No. 1 and the ISFSI, Order issued on August 30, 2018.
The findings set forth above are supported by a safety evaluation dated September 24, 2018.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), 42 USC § 2201(b), 2201(i), 2201(o), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application regarding the proposed indirect license transfer is approved for VCSNS, Unit No. 1 and the ISFSI.
IT IS ORDERED that after receipt of all required regulatory approvals of the proposed indirect transfer action, SCE&G shall inform the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in writing of such receipt no later than 2 business days prior to the date of the closing of the indirect transfer. Should the proposed indirect transfer not be completed within 1 year of this Order's date of issue, this Order shall become null and void, provided, however, upon written application and good cause shown, such date may be extended by order.
This Order supersedes the Order issued on August 30, 2018, and is effective upon issuance.
For further details with respect to this Order, see the initial application dated January 25, 2018 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML18025C035), and the Safety Evaluation dated September 24, 2018. (ADAMS Accession No. ML18255A256), which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 24th day of September, 2018
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) and the South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper) are the holders of Combined License (COL) Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Unit Nos. 2 and 3. SCE&G is a wholly owned subsidiary of SCANA Corporation (SCANA). VCSNS is located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.
By application dated January 25, 2018, SCE&G, acting for itself and its parent company, SCANA, and Dominion Energy, Inc. (Dominion Energy) (together, the Applicants) requested, pursuant to Title 10 of the
The proposed indirect license transfer would facilitate a merger between Dominion Energy and SCANA, the parent company of SCE&G. The merger would be effected through the merger of SCANA and Sedona Corp. (Sedona), which is a South Carolina corporation and subsidiary of Dominion Energy formed for the sole purpose of merging with SCANA. Sedona would be merged with and into SCANA, with SCANA remaining as the surviving corporation which will be a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Dominion Energy.
Approval of the indirect transfer of the Combined License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 was requested by SCE&G and Dominion Energy. A notice entitled, “Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 2, and 3, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License,” was published in the
Under 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the NRC gives its consent in writing. After the indirect transfer, SCE&G would remain a wholly owned subsidiary of SCANA, which in turn would become a wholly owned subsidiary of Dominion Energy. SCE&G would remain the licensed co-owner and operator of VCSNS, Units 2 and 3. Upon review of the information in the licensee's application, and other information before the Commission, the NRC staff has determined that the Applicants are qualified to hold the license to the extent proposed to permit the indirect transfer. The NRC staff has also determined that indirect transfer of the licenses, as described in the application, is otherwise consistent with the applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the NRC, pursuant thereto, subject to the conditions set forth below.
On August 30, 2018, the Commission issued, “Order Approving Indirect Transfer of Licenses,” for VCSNS, Units 2 and 3. Subsequently, the NRC staff determined that corrections were needed to the cover letter, Orders, and the safety evaluation. This Order contains the correction and supersedes the VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, Order issued on August 30, 2018.
The findings set forth above are supported by a safety evaluation dated September 24, 2018.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), 42 USC § 2201(b), 2201(i), 2201(o), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80 and 52.105, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application regarding the proposed indirect license transfer is approved for
IT IS ORDERED that after receipt of all required regulatory approvals of the proposed indirect transfer action, SCE&G shall inform the Director of the Office of New Reactors in writing of such receipt no later than 2 business days prior to the date of the closing of the indirect transfer. Should the proposed indirect transfer not be completed within 1 year of this Order's date of issue, this Order shall become null and void, provided, however, upon written application and good cause shown, such date may be extended by order.
This Order supersedes the Order issued on August 30, 2018, and is effective upon issuance.
For further details with respect to this Order, see the initial application dated January 25, 2018 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML18025C035), and the Safety Evaluation dated September 24, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18255A256), which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 24th day of September, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Application for direct transfer of license; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is considering approval of an application filed by LaCrosseSolutions, LLC (LS), on June 27, 2018. The application seeks NRC approval of the direct transfer of Facility Operating License No. DPR-45 for the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR), from the current holder, LS, to the Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC), who held the operating license for LACBWR prior to transferring it to LS in 2016. The NRC is also considering amending the facility operating license for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer.
Comments must be filed by November 13, 2018. A request for a hearing must be filed by October 31, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Marlayna Vaaler, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-3178, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0217 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0217 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is considering the issuance of an order under section 50.80 of title 10 of the
Following approval of the proposed direct transfer of control of the license, DPC would acquire full ownership of the facility, similar to what existed before the June 2016 license transfer to LS. The proposed amendment would reflect that LS's licensed possession, maintenance, and decommissioning authorities have been transitioned back to DPC upon completion of decommissioning activities at the LACBWR site. Thereafter, DPC will maintain the onsite independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), and the ultimate disposition of the spent nuclear fuel will be provided for under the terms of DPC's Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High Level Waste with the U.S. Department of Energy. DPC will also continue to maintain its nuclear decommissioning trust, a grantor trust in which funds are segregated from its assets and outside its administrative control, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(e)(1).
The NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 50.80 state that no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application for the direct transfer of a license if the Commission determines that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission.
Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. An Environmental Assessment will not be performed because, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(21), license transfer approvals and the associated license amendments are categorically excluded from the requirements to perform an Environmental Assessment.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization facility which does no more than conform the license to reflect the transfer action involves no significant hazards consideration. No contrary determination has been made with respect to this specific license amendment application. In light of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no public comments with respect to significant hazards considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91.
Within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted as described in the
Within 20 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion that support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 20 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 20 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket that is available to the public at
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the
For further details with respect to this application, see the application dated June 27, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
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.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 4, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange recently filed a proposed rule change to amend, in part, Rule 2.160 related to qualification and registration requirements for associated persons of a Member (the “Original Filing”).
First, the Exchange proposes to add the text “Supplementary Material” immediately following the text of Rule 2.160(e)(3) to introduce Supplementary Material .01 and .02 which follows. The Exchange's rulebook introduces Supplementary Material in this manner in other rules, and therefore proposes to conform in Rule 2.160(e).
Second, in each of Rule 2.160(h) and (i) the Exchange proposes to relocate the text “.01” following the text “Supplementary Material” to the beginning of such Supplementary Material rather than following the text “Supplementary Material.”
Third, the Original Filing inadvertently introduced two typographical errors in Rule 2.160(g). Specifically, in the first sentence the word “shown” was incorrectly included as “show” and the word “Exchange” was not capitalized. The Exchange proposes to correct both typographical errors.
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
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, as amended. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues but rather to correct inadvertent typographical errors, thereby eliminating any potential confusion regarding such rule provisions with changing their substance.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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 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.
On August 15, 2018, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA has proposed to amend Rule 7730 (Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE)) to remove Computer-to-Computer Interface (“CTCI”) as a technological means of connectivity for use in reporting transactions to TRACE. CTCI was made available for TRACE reporting purposes at TRACE's inception. FINRA added Financial Information eXchange (“FIX”) as a protocol for transaction reporting to TRACE for securitized products in 2011 and for corporate and agency debt securities in 2012. FINRA has represented that approximately two thirds of member firms with direct connections, and half of the service bureaus, have migrated from CTCI to FIX.
Accordingly, FINRA has proposed to amend Rule 7730 to remove CTCI as a means of connectivity for members to report transactions to TRACE, leaving three currently available options: (i) Web browser access; (ii) FIX line access; or (iii) indirectly via third-party vendors (
After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association.
While Section 15A(b)(6) sets out principles to which the rules of a national securities association must adhere, it does not prescribe specific technological requirements for carrying out those principles. Thus, in a situation where an association requires information from its members to carry out its self-regulatory and market oversight functions, the association generally has discretion over establishing the means by which its members may be required to provide
First, FINRA will continue to support three other technological protocols for reporting transactions to TRACE: FIX, web browser, and via third-party vendor. Second, FIX already is utilized by approximately half of the third-party vendors and two-thirds of member firms with direct reporting capability, and with the increase in the percentage of TRACE transactions reported via FIX there has been a concomitant decrease in CTCI usage.
For these reasons, the Commission believes the proposed rule change is consistent with 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 its Fee Schedule, pursuant to IEX Rule 15.110(a) and (c), to specify the circumstances under which the Exchange will aggregate the activity of affiliated Members for purposes of applying the provisions of the IEMM Program. The Exchange also proposes a minor change to correct an errant cross reference in the Fee Schedule.
The IEMM program is 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.
•
•
Members that are designated as an IEMM qualify for the Standard Match Fee Discount, Reduced Match Fee Discount, and the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee Discount. Specifically, for Inside Tier IEMMs, the Standard Match Fee Discount, Reduced Match Fee Discount, and the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee Discount results in a $0.0001 discount for each execution subject to the Standard Match Fee Discount, Reduced Match Fee Discount, or the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee Discount, respectively, with no cap on aggregate monthly savings. Furthermore, Depth Tier IEMMs will receive a $0.0001 discount for each execution subject to the Standard Match Fee Discount, the Reduced Match Fee Discount, and the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee Discount, up to $20,000.00 in aggregate savings per month. 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 Member's executions 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.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to provide for aggregation of affiliated Members' activity for purposes of applying the provisions of the IEMM Program. The proposal is substantially based on Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC (“Nasdaq”) Rule 7027, and the New York Stock Exchange, Inc.'s (“NYSE”) Price List.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add footnote 2 to the Exchange's Fee Schedule, entitled “Aggregation of activity of affiliated Members” to specify that for purposes of applying the provisions of Rule 11.170(a), a Member may request that the Exchange aggregate its activity with activity of such Member's affiliated Members. A Member requesting aggregation of affiliate activity is required to certify to the Exchange the affiliate status of Members whose activity it seeks to aggregate prior to receiving approval for aggregation, and inform the Exchange immediately of any event that causes an entity to cease being an affiliate. The Exchange shall review available information regarding the entities and reserves the right to request additional information to verify the affiliate status of an entity.
If two or more Members become affiliated on or prior to the sixteenth day of a month and submit the required request for aggregation on or prior to the twenty-second day of the month, an approval of the request by the Exchange shall be deemed to be effective as of the first day of that month. If two or more Members become affiliated after the sixteenth day of a month or submit a request for aggregation after the twenty-second day of the month, an approval of the request by the Exchange shall be deemed to be effective as of the first day of the next calendar month. For purposes of applying the provisions of Rule 11.170(a), references to an IEMM shall include the Member and any of its affiliates that have been approved for aggregation. The term “affiliate” shall mean any Member under 75% common ownership or control of that Member.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to correct an errant cross reference in the Fee Schedule that incorrectly cross references Rule 11.160(a) (Notification Requirements for Offering Participants) as the IEX Enhanced Market Maker program. The Exchange proposes to correct the cross reference to appropriately cite to Rule 11.170(a) (Market Quality Incentive Programs).
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it establishes a clear and objective process for aggregating activity across affiliated legal entities to simplify the process of billing under the IEMM program. Furthermore, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest in that it establishes a clear policy with respect to affiliate aggregation for fee purposes that is common among other exchanges, thereby promoting Members' understanding of the parameters of the IEMM program and the efficiency of its administration. The proposed rule is equitable because all similarly situated members are subject to the proposed rules equally, and access to the Exchange is offered on fair and nondiscriminatory terms.
All Members seeking to aggregate their activity are subject to the same reasonable parameters, in accordance with a standard that recognizes an affiliation as of the month's beginning, or close in time to when the affiliation occurs, provided the Member submits a timely request. Moreover, the proposed billing aggregation language is reasonable because it establishes a standard for implementation of aggregation requests that is easy to administer and that reflects the need for the Exchange to review and approve aggregation requests while avoiding the complexities associated with proration of the bills of Members that become affiliated during the course of a month. The Exchange believes that this approach will thus simplify the process of billing under the IEMM program for the Exchange and its Members and is substantially similar to aggregation standards adopted by other exchanges.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change avoids disparate treatment of Members that have divided their various business activities between separate legal entities as compared to Members that operate those business activities within a single legal entity. The Exchange further notes that the proposed rule change is reasonable and is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by harmonizing the rules across exchanges that govern the aggregation of certain activity for purposes of billing. In particular, as noted above, both Nasdaq and NYSE have substantially similar rules governing aggregation of activity for fee purposes.
Lastly, the Exchange believes the proposed correction to the cross-reference is reasonable and consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest in that it is designed to make the Exchange's Fee Schedule more clear and accurate, to the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As stated above, the proposed rule change, which applies equally to all Members, is intended to reduce the Exchange's administrative burden in applying discounts for firms which have requested aggregation with an affiliate Member, and is substantially similar to rules adopted by other exchanges. Because the market for order execution and routing is extremely competitive, Members may readily opt to disfavor the Exchange if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. The Exchange thus does not believe the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
Lastly, the Exchange believes the proposed correction to the cross reference, as described above, does not impose any burden on competition, as it is simply designed to make the Exchanges Fee Schedule more clear and accurate, to the benefit of all market participants.
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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Rule 203, Qualification and Registration of Members and Associated Persons, relating to registration and qualification examinations required for Members and Associated Persons of Members that engage in trading activities on the Exchange.
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 Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or the “Commission”) recently approved a proposed rule change to restructure the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) representative-level qualification examination program.
The SIE will assess basic product knowledge; the structure and function of the securities industry markets, regulatory agencies and their functions; and regulated and prohibited practices. In particular, the SIE will cover four major areas. The first, “Knowledge of Capital Markets,” focuses on topics such as types of markets and offerings, broker-dealers and depositories, and economic cycles. The second, “Understanding Products and Their Risks,” covers securities products at a high level as well as associated investment risks. The third, “Understanding Trading, Customer Accounts and Prohibited Activities,” focuses on accounts, orders, settlement and prohibited activities. The final, “Overview of the Regulatory Framework,” encompasses topics such as SROs, registration requirements and specified conduct rules. It is anticipated that the SIE will include 75 scored questions plus an additional 10 unscored pretest questions. The passing score will be determined through methodologies compliant with testing industry standards used to develop examinations and set passing standards.
The restructured program will eliminate duplicative testing of general securities knowledge on the current representative-level qualification examinations by moving such content into the SIE. The SIE will test fundamental securities related knowledge, including knowledge of basic products, the structure and function of the securities industry, the regulatory agencies and their functions and regulated and prohibited practices, whereas the revised representative-level qualification examinations will test knowledge relevant to day-to-day activities, responsibilities and job functions of representatives. The SIE was developed in consultation with a committee of industry representatives and representatives of several SROs. Each of the current representative-level examinations covers general securities knowledge, with the exception of the Research Analyst (Series 86 and 87) examinations.
The Exchange proposes to require that effective October 1, 2018, new applicants seeking to register in a representative capacity with the Exchange must pass the SIE before their registrations can become effective. The Exchange proposes to make the requirement operative on October 1, 2018 to coincide with the effective date of FINRA's requirement.
The Exchange notes that individuals who are registered as of October 1, 2018 will be eligible to maintain their registrations without being subject to any additional requirements. Individuals who have been registered within the last two years prior to October 1, 2018, will also be eligible to maintain those registrations without being subject to any additional requirements, provided they register within two years from the date of their last registration. However, with respect to an individual who is not registered
The Exchange also proposes to add Interpretations and Policies .09 to Rule 203 “Summary of Qualifications Requirements” which summarizes the qualification requirements for each of the required registration categories described in the Exchange Rules.
The Exchange notes that this filing is substantially similar to a companion Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (“MIAX Options”) filing relating to registration and qualification examinations required for Members and Associated Persons of Members that engage in trading activities on the MIAX Options Exchange.
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 will improve the efficiency of the Exchange's examination requirements, without compromising the qualification standards, by eliminating duplicative testing of general securities knowledge on examinations. FINRA has indicated that the SIE was developed in an effort to adopt an examination that would assess basic product knowledge; the structure and function of the securities industry markets, regulatory agencies and their functions; and regulated and prohibited practices. The Exchange also notes that the introduction of the SIE and expansion of the pool of individuals who are eligible to take the SIE, has the potential of enhancing the pool of prospective securities industry professionals by introducing them to securities laws, rules and regulations and appropriate conduct before they join the industry in a registered capacity. Lastly, the Exchange notes adopting the SIE requirement is consistent with the requirement recently adopted by FINRA.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that adding Interpretations and Policies .09 to Rule 203 will provide greater clarity regarding the Exchange's examination requirements as updated by, and those remaining in effect following, the proposed rule change, and consistency with the rules of other exchanges.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, which harmonizes its rules with recent rule changes adopted by FINRA and which is being filed in conjunction with similar filings by the other national securities exchanges, will reduce the regulatory burden placed on market participants engaged in trading activities across different markets. The Exchange believes that the harmonization of these registration requirements across the various markets will reduce burdens on competition by removing impediments to participation in the national market system and promoting competition among participants across the multiple national securities 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 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 under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email
• 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.
On December 4, 2017, NYSE Arca Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act (“Exchange Act”)
On January 30, 2018, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
On August 22, 2018, the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority,
Accordingly,
It is further
By the Commission.
On January 5, 2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
On February 22, 2018, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, the Commission designated a longer
On August 22, 2018, the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority,
Accordingly,
It is further
By the Commission.
On January 5, 2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
On February 22, 2018, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.
On August 21, 2018, BZX filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal, which amended and replaced in its entirety the proposal as originally filed on January 5, 2018. On August 22, 2018, BZX filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposal, which amended and replaced in its entirety the proposal as amended on August 21, 2018.
On August 22, 2018, the Division of Trading and Markets (“Division”), acting by delegated authority, issued an order disapproving the proposed rule change.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,
The Exchange filed a proposal to list and trade shares of the GraniteShares Bitcoin ETF and the GraniteShares Short Bitcoin ETF (each a “Fund” and, collectively, the “Funds”), a series of the GraniteShares ETP Trust (the “Trust”), under Rule 14.11(f)(4) (“Trust Issued Receipts”). The shares of the Funds are referred to herein as the “Shares.”
The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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 parts of such statements.
This Amendment No. 2 to SR-CboeBZX-2018-001 amends and replaces in its entirety Amendment No. 1 to the proposal as submitted on August 21, 2018, which amended and replaced in its entirety the proposal as originally submitted on January 5, 2018. The Exchange submits this Amendment No. 2 in order to clarify certain points and add additional details about the Fund.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares of the GraniteShares Bitcoin ETF (the “Long Fund”) and the GraniteShares Short Bitcoin ETF (the “Short Fund”) under Rule 14.11(f)(4), which governs the listing and trading of Trust Issued Receipts
The Shares will be offered by the Trust, which was established as a Delaware statutory trust on November 7, 2016. The Trust will not be registered as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and is not required to register under such act.
GraniteShares Advisors LLC (the “Sponsor”) serves as the Trust's sponsor and commodity pool operator and is a member of the National Futures Association (the “NFA”). As a member of the NFA, the Sponsor is subject to NFA standards relating to fair trade practices, financial condition, and consumer protection. Bank of New York Mellon serves as administrator, custodian, and transfer agent for the Funds. Foreside Fund Services, LLC (“Marketing Agent”) serves as the distributor for the Trust.
The Funds are not actively managed by traditional methods (
Prior to listing a new commodity futures contract, a designated contract market must either submit a self-certification to the CFTC that the contract complies with the CEA and CFTC regulations or voluntarily submit the contract for CFTC approval. This process applies to all futures contracts and all commodities underlying the futures contracts, whether the new futures contracts are related to oil, gold, or any other commodity.
As such, the Exchange is proposing to list and trade the Funds under Rule 14.11(f)(4), which governs the listing and trading of Trust Issued Receipts on the Exchange.
The Long Fund seeks as its investment objective results (before fees and expenses) that, both for a single day
The Short Fund seeks to provide investment results that, on a daily basis correspond (before fees and expenses) to the inverse (−1x) of the daily performance of the Benchmark Futures Contracts for a single day. By being short Bitcoin Futures Contracts, as defined below, the Short Fund seeks to benefit from daily decreases in the price of the Bitcoin Futures Contracts and will lose value when the price of the Bitcoin Futures Contracts increase.
Each Fund will, under Normal Market Conditions,
Bitcoin Futures Contracts are measures of the market's expectation of the price of bitcoin at certain points in the future, and as such will behave differently than current or spot bitcoin prices. The Funds are not linked to bitcoin and in many cases the Funds could significantly underperform or outperform the price of bitcoin.
The Funds do not intend to hold Bitcoin Futures Contracts through expiration, but instead intend to either close or “roll” their respective positions. When the market for these contracts is such that the prices are higher in the more distant delivery months than in the nearer delivery months, the sale during the course of the “rolling process” of the more nearby contract would take place at a price that is lower than the price of the more nearby Bitcoin Futures Contracts would take place at a price that is lower than the price of the more distant Bitcoin Futures Contracts. This pattern of higher futures prices for longer expiration Bitcoin Futures Contracts is referred to as “contango.” Alternatively, when the market for certain Bitcoin Futures Contracts is such that the prices are higher in the nearer months than in the more distant months, the sale during the course of the “rolling process” of the more nearby Bitcoin Futures Contracts would take place at a price that is higher than the price of the more distant Bitcoin Futures Contracts. This pattern of higher future prices for shorter expiration Bitcoin Futures Contracts is referred to as “backwardation.” The presence of contango in the relevant Bitcoin Futures Contracts at the time of rolling would be expected to adversely affect the long positions held by the Long Fund, and positively affect the short positions held by the Short Fund. Similarly, the presence of backwardation in Bitcoin Futures Contracts at the time of rolling such Bitcoin Futures Contracts would be expected to adversely affect the short positions held by the Short Fund and positively affect the long positions held by the Long Fund.
Each Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage (although certain derivatives and other investments may result in leverage).
The Exchange recognizes that certain policy concerns exist as it relates to any series of Trust Issued Receipts that are listed on the Exchange, but that these concerns, as well as certain other concerns raised by this proposal specifically, are mitigated as it relates to the Funds and their holdings for the reasons enumerated below.
First, the Exchange believes that the policy concerns related to an underlying reference asset and its susceptibility to manipulation are mitigated as it relates to bitcoin because the very nature of the bitcoin ecosystem makes manipulation of bitcoin difficult. The geographically diverse and continuous nature of bitcoin trading makes it difficult and prohibitively costly to manipulate the price of bitcoin and, in many instances, that the bitcoin market is generally less susceptible to manipulation than the equity, fixed income, and commodity futures markets. There are a number of reasons this is the case, including that there is not inside information about revenue, earnings, corporate activities, or sources of supply; it is generally not possible to disseminate false or misleading information about bitcoin in order to manipulate; manipulation of the price on any single venue would require manipulation of the global bitcoin price in order to be effective; a substantial over-the-counter market provides liquidity and shock-absorbing capacity; bitcoin's 24/7/365 nature provides constant arbitrage opportunities across all trading venues; and it is unlikely that any one actor could obtain a dominant market share.
Further, bitcoin is arguably less susceptible to manipulation than other commodities that underlie ETPs; there may be inside information relating to the supply of the physical commodity such as the discovery of new sources of supply or significant disruptions at mining facilities that supply the commodity that simply are inapplicable as it relates to bitcoin. The Exchange believes that the fragmentation across bitcoin exchanges, the relatively slow speed of transactions, and the capital necessary to maintain a significant presence on each exchange make manipulation of bitcoin prices through continuous trading activity unlikely. Moreover, the linkage between the bitcoin markets and the presence of arbitrageurs in those markets means that the manipulation of the price of bitcoin price on any single venue would require manipulation of the global bitcoin price in order to be effective. Arbitrageurs must have funds distributed across multiple bitcoin exchanges in order to take advantage of temporary price dislocations, thereby making it unlikely that there will be strong concentration of funds on any particular bitcoin exchange. As a result, the potential for manipulation on a particular bitcoin exchange would require overcoming the liquidity supply of such arbitrageurs who are effectively eliminating any
Second, the Exchange believes that the policy concerns related to the susceptibility to manipulation of an underlying futures contract is, in addition to the arguments above, further mitigated by the Bitcoin Futures Contracts. The Funds are designed to, both for a single day and over time, match the performance (or the inverse) of lead month Benchmark Futures Contracts (and not the spot price of bitcoin). The Funds will continuously roll the contracts that they hold prior to expiration (generally at least one week before expiration) and will never hold a contract through settlement, such holdings will never be directly priced based on the spot bitcoin market price. This combined with the CFE, CME, and Exchange surveillance procedures related to the Bitcoin Futures, the Shares, and CFTC oversight,
According to the Registration Statement, the net asset value (“NAV”) of the Shares of the Funds will be calculated by dividing the value of the net assets of the Fund (
Bitcoin Futures Contracts are generally valued at their settlement price as determined by the relevant exchange. Cash and Cash Equivalents will generally be valued at their market price using market quotations or information provided by a pricing service.
For more information regarding the valuation of Fund investments in calculating a Fund's NAV, see the Registration Statement.
The Funds will issue and redeem Shares on a continuous basis at the NAV per Share only in large blocks of a specified number of Shares or multiples thereof (“Creation Units”) in transactions with authorized participants who have entered into agreements with the Distributor. The Adviser currently anticipates that a Creation Unit will consist of 10,000 Shares, though this number may change from time to time, including prior to listing of the Shares. The exact number of Shares that will constitute a Creation Unit will be disclosed in the Registration Statement. Once created, Shares of the Funds may trade on the secondary market in amounts less than a Creation Unit.
Although the Adviser anticipates that purchases and redemptions for Creation Units will generally be executed on an all-cash basis, the consideration for purchase of Creation Units of the Funds may consist of an in-kind deposit of a designated portfolio of assets (including any portion of such assets for which cash may be substituted) (
The Deposit Assets and Fund Securities (as defined below), as the case may be, in connection with a purchase or redemption of a Creation Unit, generally will correspond pro rata, to the extent practicable, to the assets held by the Funds.
The Cash Component will be an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares (per Creation Unit) and the “Deposit Amount,” which will be an amount equal to the market value of the Deposit Assets, and serve to compensate for any differences between the NAV per Creation Unit and the Deposit Amount. The Funds generally offer Creation Units partially or entirely for cash. The Adviser will make available through the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) on each business day, prior to the opening of business on the Exchange, the list of names and the required number or par value of each Deposit Asset and the amount of the Cash Component to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information as of the end of the previous business day) for the Fund.
The identity and number or par value of the Deposit Assets may change pursuant to changes in the composition of a Fund's portfolio as rebalancing and rolling adjustments and corporate action events occur from time to time. The composition of the Deposit Assets may also change in response to adjustments to the weighting or composition of the holdings of the Fund.
The Fund reserves the right to permit or require the substitution of a “cash in lieu” amount to be added to the Cash Component to replace any Deposit Asset that may not be available in sufficient quantity for delivery or that may not be eligible for transfer through the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) or the clearing process through the NSCC.
Except as noted below, all creation orders must be placed for one or more Creation Units and must be received by the Distributor at a time specified by the Adviser. The Fund currently intends that such orders must be received in proper form no later than 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the date such order is placed in order for creation of Creation Units to be effected based on the NAV of Shares of each Fund as next determined on such date after receipt of the order in proper form. The “Settlement Date” is generally the second business day after the transmittal date. On days when the Exchange or the futures markets close earlier than normal, the Funds may require orders to create or to redeem Creation Units to be placed earlier in the day.
Fund Deposits must be delivered through either the Continuous Net Settlement facility of the NSCC, the Federal Reserve System (for cash and
A standard creation transaction fee may be imposed to offset the transfer and other transaction costs associated with the issuance of Creation Units.
Shares of the Funds may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form by the Distributor and only on a business day. The Adviser will make available through the NSCC, prior to the opening of business on the Exchange on each business day, the designated portfolio of assets (including any portion of such assets for which cash may be substituted) that will be applicable (subject to possible amendment or correction) to redemption requests received in proper form on that day (“Fund Securities”). The redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit generally will consist of a specified amount of cash less a redemption transaction fee. The Fund generally will redeem Creation Units entirely for cash.
A standard redemption transaction fee may be imposed to offset transfer and other transaction costs that may be incurred by the Fund.
Redemption requests for Creation Units of the Funds must be submitted to the Distributor by or through an authorized participant by a time specified by the Adviser. The Fund currently intends that such requests must be received no later than 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time on any business day, in order to receive that day's NAV. The authorized participant must transmit the request for redemption in the form required by the Funds to the Distributor in accordance with procedures set forth in the authorized participant agreement.
Additional information regarding the Shares and the Funds, including investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees and expenses, portfolio holdings disclosure policies, distributions, taxes and reports to be distributed to beneficial owners of the Shares can be found in the Registration Statement or on the website for the Funds (
The Funds' website, which will be publicly available prior to the public offering of Shares, will include a form of the prospectus for each Fund that may be downloaded. The websites will include additional quantitative information updated on a daily basis, including, for the Fund: (1) The prior business day's reported NAV, the closing market price or the midpoint of the bid/ask spread at the time of calculation of such NAV (the “Bid/Ask Price”),
In addition, for each Fund, an estimated value that reflects an estimated intraday value of the Fund's portfolio (the “Intraday Indicative Value”), will be disseminated. Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value will be based upon the current value for the components of the Disclosed Portfolio and will be updated and widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Regular Trading Hours.
The dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value, together with the Disclosed Portfolio, will allow investors to determine the value of the underlying portfolio of each Fund on a daily basis and provide an estimate of that value throughout the trading day.
Intraday price quotations on Cash Equivalents of the type held by the Funds are available from major broker-dealer firms and from third-parties, which may provide prices free with a time delay, or “live” with a paid fee. For Bitcoin Futures Contracts, such intraday information is available directly from the applicable listing venue. Intraday price information is also available through subscription services, such as Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters, which can be accessed by authorized participants and other investors. Pricing information related to Cash Equivalents will be available through issuer websites and publicly available quotation services such as Bloomberg, Markit and Thomson Reuters.
Information regarding market price and volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. The previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be generally available daily in the print and online financial press. Quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available on the facilities of the CTA.
The Shares will be subject to BZX Rule 14.11(f)(4), which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Trust Issued Receipts that invest in Financial Instruments. The Exchange will obtain a representation that the Trust's NAV will be calculated daily and that these values and information about the assets of the Trust will be made available to all market participants at the same time. The Trust currently expects that there will be at least 20,000 Shares outstanding at the time of commencement of trading on the Exchange. Upon termination of the Trust, the Shares will be removed from listing. The Trustee, Wilmington Trust Company, is a trust company having substantial capital and surplus and the experience and facilities for handling corporate trust business, as required under Rule 14.11(f)(2)(D)(iv)(a) and that no change will be made to the trustee without prior notice to and approval of the Exchange.
As required in Rule 14.11(f)(4)(D), the Exchange notes that any registered market maker (“Market Maker”) in the Shares must file with the Exchange in a manner prescribed by the Exchange and keep current a list identifying all accounts for trading in an underlying commodity, related commodity futures or options on commodity futures, or any other related commodity derivatives, which the registered Market Maker may have or over which it may exercise investment discretion. No registered Market Maker shall trade in an underlying commodity, related commodity futures or options on commodity futures, or any other related commodity derivatives, in an account in which a registered Market Maker, directly or indirectly, controls trading activities, or has a direct interest in the profits or losses thereof, which has not been reported to the Exchange as required by this Rule. In addition to the existing obligations under Exchange rules regarding the production of books and records (see,
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares. The Exchange will halt trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in BZX Rule 11.18. Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the bitcoin underlying the Shares; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. Trading in the Shares also will be subject to Rule 14.11(f)(4)(C)(ii), which sets forth circumstances under which trading in the Shares may be halted and delisting proceedings commenced.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. BZX will allow trading in the Shares from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in BZX Rule 11.11(a) the minimum price variation for quoting and entry of orders in securities traded on the Exchange is $0.01 where the price is greater than $1.00 per share or $0.0001 where the price is less than $1.00 per share.
As discussed above, the Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Additionally, the Bitcoin Futures Contracts will be subject to the rules and surveillance programs of CFE, CME, and the CFTC.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) Exchange Rule 3.7, which imposes suitability obligations on Exchange members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (3) how information regarding the Intraday Indicative Value is disseminated; (4) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Opening
In addition, the Information Circular will advise members, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Fund. Members purchasing Shares from the Funds for resale to investors will deliver a prospectus to such investors. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the
In addition, the Information Circular will reference that each Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Circular will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares of the Funds and the applicable NAV calculation time for the Shares. The Information Circular will disclose that information about the Shares of the Funds will be publicly available on that Fund's website. In addition, the Information Circular will reference that the Trust is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. The geographically diverse and continuous nature of bitcoin trading makes it difficult and prohibitively costly to manipulate the price of bitcoin and, in many instances, that the bitcoin market is generally less susceptible to manipulation than the equity, fixed income, and commodity futures markets. There are a number of reasons this is the case, including that there is not inside information about revenue, earnings, corporate activities, or sources of supply; it is generally not possible to disseminate false or misleading information about bitcoin in order to manipulate; manipulation of the price on any single venue would require manipulation of the global bitcoin price in order to be effective; a substantial over-the-counter market provides liquidity and shock-absorbing capacity; bitcoin's 24/7/365 nature provides constant arbitrage opportunities across all trading venues; and it is unlikely that any one actor could obtain a dominant market share.
Further, bitcoin is arguably less susceptible to manipulation than other commodities that underlie ETPs; there may be inside information relating to the supply of the physical commodity such as the discovery of new sources of supply or significant disruptions at mining facilities that supply the commodity that simply are inapplicable as it relates to bitcoin. The Exchange believes that the fragmentation across bitcoin exchanges, the relatively slow speed of transactions, and the capital necessary to maintain a significant presence on each exchange make manipulation of bitcoin prices through continuous trading activity unlikely. Moreover, the linkage between the bitcoin markets and the presence of arbitrageurs in those markets means that the manipulation of the price of bitcoin price on any single venue would require manipulation of the global bitcoin price in order to be effective. Arbitrageurs must have funds distributed across multiple bitcoin exchanges in order to take advantage of temporary price dislocations, thereby making it unlikely that there will be strong concentration of funds on any particular bitcoin exchange. As a result, the potential for manipulation on a particular bitcoin exchange would require overcoming the liquidity supply of such arbitrageurs who are effectively eliminating any cross-market pricing differences. For all of these reasons, bitcoin is not particularly susceptible to manipulation, especially as compared to other approved ETP reference assets.
The Exchange also believes that the policy concerns related to the susceptibility to manipulation of an underlying futures contract is, in addition to the arguments above, further mitigated by the Bitcoin Futures Contracts. The Funds are designed to, both for a single day and over time, match the performance (or the inverse) of lead month Benchmark Futures Contracts (and not the spot price of bitcoin). The Funds will continuously roll the contracts that they hold prior to expiration (generally at least one week before expiration) and will never hold a contract through settlement, such holdings will never be directly priced based on the spot bitcoin market price. This combined with the CFE, CME, and Exchange surveillance procedures related to the Bitcoin Futures, the Shares, and CFTC oversight, along with the difficulty in manipulating the bitcoin market described above will mitigate the potential policy concerns and further prevent trading in the Shares from being susceptible to manipulation.
Trading of the Shares through the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products, including Trust Issued Receipts. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and the underlying Bitcoin Futures Contracts via ISG, from other exchanges who are members or affiliates of the ISG, or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. The Exchange may also obtain information regarding trading in the spot bitcoin market via the ISG, from other exchanges who are members or affiliates of the ISG, or from other exchanges with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, the Exchange is able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income instruments reported to TRACE. The Exchange prohibits the distribution of material non-public information by its employees. The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws.
Because of its innovative features as a cryptoasset, bitcoin has gained wide acceptance as a secure means of exchange in the commercial marketplace and has generated significant interest among investors. In less than a decade since its creation in 2008, bitcoin has achieved significant market penetration, with payments giant PayPal and thousands of merchants and businesses accepting it as a form of commercial payment, as well as receiving official recognition from several governments, including Japan and Australia. Accordingly, investor interest in gaining exposure to bitcoin is increasing exponentially as well. As expected, the total volume of bitcoin transactions in the market continues to grow exponentially.
Despite the growing investor interest in bitcoin, the primary means for investors to gain access to bitcoin exposure remains either through the Bitcoin Futures Contracts or direct investment through bitcoin exchanges or over-the-counter trading. For regular investors simply wishing to express an investment viewpoint in bitcoin, investment through the Bitcoin Futures Contracts is complex and requires active
In addition to improved convenience, efficiency and transparency, the Funds will also help to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices by enhancing the security afforded to investors as compared to a direct investment in bitcoin. Despite the extensive security mechanisms built into the Bitcoin network, a remaining risk to owning bitcoin directly is the need for the holder to retain and protect the “private key” required to spend or sell bitcoin after purchase. If a holder's private key is compromised or simply lost, their bitcoin can be rendered unavailable—
The Funds expect that they will generally seek to remain fully exposed to Bitcoin Futures Contracts even during times of adverse market conditions. Under Normal Market Conditions, the Funds will generally hold only Bitcoin Futures Contracts and cash and Cash Equivalents (which are used to collateralize the Bitcoin Futures Contracts).
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information is publicly available regarding the Funds and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value will be disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during Regular Trading Hours. On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares during Regular Trading Hours, each Fund will disclose on its website the Disclosed Portfolio that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the business day. Pricing information will be available on each Fund's website including: (1) The prior business day's reported NAV, the Bid/Ask Price of the Fund, and a calculation of the premium and discount of the Bid/Ask Price against the NAV; and (2) data in chart format displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the daily Bid/Ask Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges, for each of the four previous calendar quarters. Additionally, information regarding market price and trading of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available on the facilities of the CTA. The website for each Fund will include a form of the prospectus for the Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Trading in Shares of the Funds will be halted under the conditions specified in BZX Rule 11.18. Trading may also be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. Finally, trading in the Shares will be subject to BZX Rule 14.11(f)(4)(B)(ii), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Funds may be halted and delisting proceedings commenced. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding each Fund's holdings, the Intraday Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
Intraday price quotations on Cash Equivalents of the type held by the Funds are available from major broker-dealer firms and from third-parties, which may provide prices free with a time delay, or “live” with a paid fee. For Bitcoin Futures Contracts, such intraday information is available directly from the applicable listing venue. Intraday price information is also available through subscription services, such as Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters, which can be accessed by authorized participants and other investors. Pricing information related to Cash Equivalents will be available through issuer websites and publicly available quotation services such as Bloomberg, Markit and Thomson Reuters.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of additional types of actively-managed exchange-traded products that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement as well as trade information for certain fixed income instruments as reported to FINRA's TRACE. Not more than 10% of the net assets of a Fund in the aggregate invested in Bitcoin Futures Contracts shall consist of Bitcoin Futures Contracts whose principal market is not a member of the ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding each Fund's holdings, the Intraday Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
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 purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change, rather will facilitate the listing and trading of additional actively-managed exchange-traded products that will enhance competition among both market participants and listing venues, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, 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.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Rules 203, Qualification and Registration of Members and Associated Persons, 1301, Registration of Options Principals, and 1302, Registration of Representatives, relating to registration and qualification examinations required for Members and Associated Persons of Members that engage in trading activities on the Exchange.
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 Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or the “Commission”) recently approved a proposed rule change to restructure the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) representative-level qualification examination program.
The SIE will assess basic product knowledge; the structure and function of the securities industry markets, regulatory agencies and their functions; and regulated and prohibited practices. In particular, the SIE will cover four major areas. The first, “Knowledge of Capital Markets,” focuses on topics such as types of markets and offerings, broker-dealers and depositories, and economic cycles. The second, “Understanding Products and Their Risks,” covers securities products at a high level as well as associated investment risks. The third, “Understanding Trading, Customer Accounts and Prohibited Activities,” focuses on accounts, orders, settlement and prohibited activities. The final,
The restructured program will eliminate duplicative testing of general securities knowledge on the current representative-level qualification examinations by moving such content into the SIE. The SIE will test fundamental securities related knowledge, including knowledge of basic products, the structure and function of the securities industry, the regulatory agencies and their functions and regulated and prohibited practices, whereas the revised representative-level qualification examinations will test knowledge relevant to day-to-day activities, responsibilities and job functions of representatives. The SIE was developed in consultation with a committee of industry representatives and representatives of several SROs. Each of the current representative-level examinations covers general securities knowledge, with the exception of the Research Analyst (Series 86 and 87) examinations.
The Exchange proposes to require that effective October 1, 2018, new applicants seeking to register in a representative capacity with the Exchange must pass the SIE before their registrations can become effective. The Exchange proposes to make the requirement operative on October 1, 2018 to coincide with the effective date of FINRA's requirement.
The Exchange notes that individuals who are registered as of October 1, 2018 will be eligible to maintain their registrations without being subject to any additional requirements. Individuals who have been registered within the last two years prior to October 1, 2018, will also be eligible to maintain those registrations without being subject to any additional requirements, provided they register within two years from the date of their last registration. However, with respect to an individual who is not registered on the effective date of the proposed rule change but was registered within the last two years prior to the effective date of the proposed rule change, the individual's SIE status in the Central Registration Depository (“CRD”) system would be administratively terminated if such individual does not register with the Exchange within four years from the date of the individual's last registration. The Exchange also notes that consistent with Rule 203 Interpretations and Policies .05, the Exchange will consider waivers of the SIE alone or the SIE and the representative or principal-level examination(s) for applicants who are seeking registration in a representative-or principal-level registration category.
The Exchange also proposes to add Interpretations and Policies .09 to Rule 203 “Summary of Qualifications Requirements” which summarizes the qualification requirements for each of the required registration categories described in the Exchange Rules.
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 will improve the efficiency of the Exchange's examination requirements, without compromising the qualification standards, by eliminating duplicative testing of general securities knowledge on examinations. FINRA has indicated that the SIE was developed in an effort to adopt an examination that would assess basic product knowledge; the structure and function of the securities industry markets, regulatory agencies and their functions; and regulated and prohibited practices. The Exchange also notes that the introduction of the SIE and expansion of the pool of individuals who are eligible to take the SIE, has the potential of enhancing the pool of prospective securities industry professionals by introducing them to securities laws, rules and regulations and appropriate conduct before they join the industry in a registered capacity. Lastly, the Exchange notes adopting the SIE requirement is consistent with the requirement recently adopted by FINRA.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that adding Interpretations and Policies .09 to Rule 203 will provide greater clarity regarding the Exchange's examination requirements as updated by, and those remaining in effect following, the proposed rule change, and consistency with the rules of other exchanges.
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. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, which harmonizes its rules with recent rule changes adopted by FINRA and which is being filed in conjunction with similar filings by the other national securities exchanges, will reduce the regulatory burden placed on market participants engaged in trading activities across different markets. The Exchange believes that the harmonization of these registration requirements across the various markets will reduce burdens on competition by removing impediments to participation in the national market system and promoting competition among participants across the multiple national securities 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 from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email
• 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.
On January 4, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
On March 1, 2018, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.
On August 22, 2018, the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to
Accordingly,
It is further
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend Capital Acquisition Broker (“CAB”) Rule 331 (Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program) to reflect the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network's (“FinCEN”) adoption of a final rule on Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions (“CDD Rule”). Specifically, the proposed amendments would conform CAB Rule 331 to the CDD Rule's amendments to the minimum regulatory requirements for CABs' anti-money laundering (“AML”) compliance programs by requiring such programs to include risk-based procedures for conducting ongoing customer due diligence. This ongoing customer due diligence element for AML programs includes: (1) Understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships for the purpose of developing a customer risk profile; and (2) conducting ongoing monitoring to identify and report suspicious transactions and, on a risk basis, to maintain and update customer information.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Commission's Public Reference Room, on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On August 18, 2016, the SEC approved
The CAB Rules became effective on April 14, 2017. In order to provide new CAB applicants with lead time to apply for FINRA membership and obtain the necessary qualifications and registrations, CAB Rules 101-125 became effective on January 3, 2017.
The Bank Secrecy Act
• The establishment and implementation of policies, procedures and internal controls reasonably
• independent testing for compliance by broker-dealer personnel or a qualified outside party;
• designation of an individual or individuals responsible for implementing and monitoring the operations and internal controls of the AML program; and
• ongoing training for appropriate persons.
On May 11, 2016, FinCEN, the bureau of the Department of the Treasury responsible for administering the BSA and its implementing regulations, issued the CDD Rule
Specifically, the CDD Rule focuses particularly on the second component by adding a new requirement that covered financial institutions identify and verify the identity of the beneficial owners of all legal entity customers at the time a new account is opened, subject to certain exclusions and exemptions.
On November 21, 2017, FINRA published
On April 20, 2018, FINRA filed for immediate effectiveness amendments to FINRA Rule 3310 to reflect FinCEN's adoption of the CDD Rule.
For the same reasons that FINRA amended FINRA Rule 3310 to reflect FinCEN's adoption of the CDD Rule, FINRA is filing for immediate effectiveness similar amendments to CAB Rule 331.
Section 352 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001
FinCEN's CDD Rule does not change the requirements of CAB Rule 331 and CABs must continue to comply with its requirements.
As stated in the CDD Rule, these provisions are not new and merely codify existing expectations for broker-dealers, including CABs, to adequately identify and report suspicious transactions as required under the BSA and encapsulate practices generally already undertaken by securities firms to know and understand their
FinCEN states in the CDD Rule that firms must necessarily have an understanding of the nature and purpose of the customer relationship in order to determine whether a transaction is potentially suspicious and, in turn, to fulfill their SAR obligations.
The CDD Rule also addresses the interplay of understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships with the ongoing monitoring obligation discussed below. The CDD Rule explains that firms are not necessarily required or expected to integrate customer information or the customer risk profile into existing transaction monitoring systems (for example, to serve as the baseline for identifying and assessing suspicious transactions on a contemporaneous basis).
As with the requirement to understand the nature and purpose of the customer relationship, the requirement to conduct ongoing monitoring to identify and report suspicious transactions and, on a risk basis, to maintain and update customer information, merely adopts existing supervisory and regulatory expectations as explicit minimum standards of customer due diligence required for firms' AML programs.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The implementation date for the proposed changes will be no later than 30 days following publication of the
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change simply incorporates into CAB Rule 331 the ongoing customer due diligence element, or “fifth pillar,” required for AML programs by the CDD Rule. The CDD Rule required broker-dealers, including CABs, to update their AML programs to explicitly incorporate them by May 11, 2018. In addition, as stated in the CDD Rule, these elements are already implicitly required for covered financial institutions to comply with their suspicious activity reporting requirements. Accordingly, FINRA is not imposing any additional direct or indirect burdens on CABs or their clients through this proposal.
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 from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2018-035 and should be submitted on or before November 1, 2018.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend certain rules related to Flexible Exchange (“FLEX”) Options. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to amend certain rules related to FLEX Options, as described below.
FLEX Options are customized equity or index contracts that allow investors to tailor contract terms for exchange-listed equity and index options.
To effectuate this change, the Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 903G(c)(3)(ii)
Today, all ETF options are settled physically,
The Exchange understands that there are concerns that have been raised in the past regarding cash-settled equity options. The Exchange seeks to allay such concerns by proposing to adopt cash-settlement as an alternative to ETFs only, and more specifically, to a narrow universe of ETFs,
With respect to position limits, cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Options will be subject to the position limits set forth in Rule 906G. Accordingly, the Exchange would establish position limits for cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Options that are the same as non-cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Options.
The Exchange understands that FLEX ETF Penny Options are currently traded in the over-the-counter (“OTC”) market by a variety of market participants,
Cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Options traded on the Exchange would have three important advantages over the contracts that are traded in the OTC market. First, as a result of greater standardization of contract terms, exchange-traded contracts should develop more liquidity. Second, counter-party credit risk would be mitigated by the fact that the contracts are issued and guaranteed by The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”). Finally, the price discovery and dissemination provided by the Exchange and its members would lead to more transparent markets. The Exchange believes that its ability to offer cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Options would aid it in competing with the OTC market and at the same time expand the universe of products available to interested market participants. The Exchange believes that an exchange-traded alternative may provide a useful risk management and trading vehicle for market participants and their customers.
The Exchange has confirmed with the OCC that OCC can support the clearance and settlement of cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Options. The Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes the Exchange and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Options. The Exchange believes any additional traffic that would be generated from the introduction of cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Options will be manageable. The Exchange believes ATP Holders will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposed rule change. The Exchange also represents that it does not believe this proposed rule change will cause fragmentation of liquidity. The Exchange will monitor the trading volume associated with the additional options series listed as a result of this proposed rule change and the effect (if any) of these additional series on market fragmentation and on the capacity of the Exchange's automated systems.
The Exchange has an adequate surveillance program in place for cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Options and intends to apply the same program procedures that it applies to the Exchange's other options products. FLEX options products and their respective symbols are integrated into the Exchange's existing surveillance system architecture and are thus subject to the relevant surveillance processes. As a result, the Exchange believes it would be able to effectively police the trading of cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Options using means that include its surveillance for manipulation. The Exchange believes that manipulating the settlement price of cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Options would be difficult based on the size of the market for such ETFs. Additionally, the Exchange notes that each cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Option that would be subject to this proposed rule change is sufficiently active so as to alleviate concerns about
Additionally, the Exchange is a member of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) under the Intermarket Surveillance Group Agreement dated June 20, 1994. The ISG members work together to coordinate surveillance and investigative information sharing in the stock and options markets. For surveillance purposes, the Exchange would therefore have access to information regarding trading activity in the pertinent underlying securities.
The Exchange believes that introducing cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Options would further broaden the base of investors that use FLEX Options to manage their trading and investment risk, including investors that currently trade in the OTC markets for customized options, where settlement restrictions do not apply. The proposed rule change is also designed to encourage market makers to shift liquidity from OTC markets onto the Exchange, which, it believes, will enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow. The Exchange also believes that this may open up cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Options to more retail investors. The Exchange does not believe that this raises any unique regulatory concerns because existing safeguards—such as position limits, exercise limits, and reporting requirements—would continue to apply.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes that the proposal to add cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Options would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market as cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Options would enable market participants to receive cash in lieu of shares of the underlying security, which would, in turn provide greater opportunities for market participants to manage risk through the use of cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Options to the benefit of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to permit cash settlement would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because the proposed rule change would provide OTP [sic] Holders with enhanced methods to manage risk by receiving cash if they choose to do so instead of the underlying security. In addition, this proposal would promote just and equitable principles of trade and protect investors and the general public because cash settlement would provide investors with an additional tool to manage their risk. Further, the Exchange notes that its proposal to introduce cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Options is not novel in that other exchanges currently offer [sic] cash settlement for options whose underlying security is an ETF. The proposed rule change therefore should not raise any issues for the Commission that have not been previously addressed.
The proposed rule change to permit cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Options is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade in that the availability of cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Options will give market participants an alternative to trading similar products in the OTC market. By trading a product in an exchange-traded environment (that is currently being used in the OTC market), the Exchange will be able to compete more effectively with the OTC market. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that it will hopefully lead to the migration of options currently trading in the OTC market to trading to the Exchange. Also, any migration to the Exchange from the OTC market will result in increased market transparency. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it should create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility. The proposed rule change should also result in enhanced efficiency in initiating and closing out positions and heightened contra-party creditworthiness due to the role of OCC as issuer and guarantor of cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Options. Further, the proposed rule change will result in increased competition by permitting the Exchange to offer products that are currently used in the OTC market.
Finally, the Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Options. Regarding the proposed cash settlement, the Exchange would use the same surveillance procedures currently utilized for the Exchange's other FLEX Options. For surveillance purposes, the Exchange would have access to information regarding trading activity in the pertinent underlying securities. The Exchange believes that limiting cash settlement to FLEX ETF Penny Options will minimize the possibility of manipulation due to the robust liquidity in both the ETF and options markets.
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 proposal is designed to increase competition for order flow on the Exchange in a manner that is beneficial to investors because it is designed to provide investors seeking to effect cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Option orders with the opportunity for different methods of settling option contracts at expiration.
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 encourages competition amongst market participants to provide tailored cash-settled FLEX ETF Penny Option contracts.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New York (FEMA-4397-DR), dated 10/01/2018.
Issued on 10/01/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 10/01/2018, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 157166 and for economic injury is 157170.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 3.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of South Carolina (FEMA-4394-DR), dated 09/21/2018.
Issued on 10/02/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of South Carolina, dated 09/21/2018, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of California (FEMA-4382-DR), dated 08/04/2018.
Issued on 10/01/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of California, dated 08/04/2018, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 07/23/2018 and continuing through 09/19/2018.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-4387-DR), dated 08/27/2018.
Issued on 10/02/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Nebraska, dated 08/27/2018, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Territory of Guam (FEMA-4398-DR), dated 10/01/2018.
Issued on October 1, 2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 10/01/2018, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 157128 and for economic injury is 157130.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of California (FEMA-4382-DR), dated 08/04/2018.
Issued on 10/01/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of California, dated 08/04/2018, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 07/23/2018 and continuing through 09/19/2018.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Deputy Commissioner for Communications, Social Security Administration (SSA).
Rescindment of a system of records notice.
In accordance with the Privacy Act, we are issuing public notice of our intent to discontinue an existing system of records notice entitled, Optical System for Correspondence Analysis and Response, last published on January 11, 2006.
Comments must be received no later than November 13, 2018. This rescindment will be effective upon publication in today's
Tristin Dorsey, Government Information Specialist, Privacy Implementation Division, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Room G-401 West High Rise, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, telephone: (410) 965-2950, email:
SSA is discontinuing the system of records 60-0002, entitled OSCAR, which was created to aid in the control of internal and external correspondence received in agency offices through various processing steps and management information regarding the correspondence process. The records will be combined and managed through an existing system of records currently titled, Assignment and Correspondence Tracking (ACT) System (60-0001), last published in full at 71 FR 1800 (January 11, 2006). SSA will rely upon the ACT system to manage internal and external correspondence and assignments received from members of the public, media, White House, Congress, and other federal agencies.
Optical System for Correspondence Analysis and Response (OSCAR), 60-0002.
71 FR 1801 (Jan. 11, 2006), Optical System for Correspondence Analysis and Response.
72 FR 69723 (Dec. 10, 2007), Optical System for Correspondence Analysis and Response.
David L. Durbano (Durbano), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) to continue in control of Washington Eastern Railroad, LLC (WERR), upon WERR's becoming a Class III rail carrier.
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
The earliest this transaction may be consummated is October 25, 2018, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed). Durbano states that he intends to consummate the transaction on or after the effective date of the transaction established by the Board in Docket No. FD 36226, which is also October 25, 2018.
Durbano will continue in control of WERR upon WERR's becoming a Class III rail carrier, while remaining in control of six other Class III carriers: Texas & Eastern Railroad, LLC, Wyoming and Colorado Railroad Company, Inc., Southwestern Railroad, Inc., Cimarron Valley Railroad, L.C., Clarkdale Arizona Central Railroad, L.C., and Saratoga Railroad, LLC.
Durbano certifies that: (1) The rail lines to be operated by WERR do not
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does not provide for labor protection for transactions under sections 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here because all of the carriers involved are Class III carriers.
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Stay petitions must be filed no later than October 18, 2018 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36227, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on William A. Mullins, Baker & Miller PLLC, 2401 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20037.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Fortress Investment Group LLC (Fortress) has filed a verified notice of exemption pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) for the benefit of Brightline Holdings LLC (Brightline) and Fortress Transportation and Infrastructure Investors LLC, which are managed by affiliates of Fortress, to continue in control of DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC (DXE)
According to Fortress, on September 17, 2018, Brightline, DXE, and Benny's HoldCo, LLC, entered into a Membership Interest Purchase Agreement (Purchase Agreement)
The parties intend to consummate the proposed control transaction as soon as practicable after the exemption becomes effective (30 days after the verified notice was filed) and the satisfaction of all other conditions precedent to closing set forth in the Purchase Agreement.
Fortress states that two other rail carriers subject to the Board's jurisdiction, Central Maine & Quebec Railway US Inc. (CMQR) and Ohio River Partners Shareholder LLC (ORPS), are currently managed by affiliates of Fortress. CMQR, a Class III carrier, operates approximately 244 miles of rail lines in the States of Maine and Vermont. ORPS, a Class III carrier, operates a 12.2-mile rail line between milepost 60.5 at or near Powhatan Point, Ohio, and milepost 72.2 at or near Hannibal, Ohio.
Fortress represents that: (1) None of the rail lines of CMQR, ORPS, or DXE connect with the lines of any other United States railroad that is owned or controlled by Fortress; (2) the transaction is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would connect the DXE Line with the lines of any other rail carrier owned or controlled by Fortress, any affiliate of Fortress, or any investment fund or entity managed by an affiliate of Fortress; and (3) CMQR, ORPS, and DXE are not Class I carriers.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does not provide for labor protection for transactions under sections 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here because all the carriers involved are Class III carriers.
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than October 18, 2018 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36225, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Terence M. Hynes, Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
According to Fortress, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic reporting under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Washington Eastern Railroad, LLC (WERR), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to assume operations over approximately 107.8 miles of track extending between milepost 1.0 near Cheney, Wash., and the end of the track at milepost 108.8 in Coulee City, Wash. (CW Branch), and over approximately 5.9 miles of track that connects with the CW Branch at Geiger Junction near Medical Lake, Wash. (Geiger Spur)
The verified notice indicates that WERR and WDOT have reached an agreement in principle for WERR to replace EWG as the lessee and operator of the Lines upon the effective date of the exemption. WERR states that BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) currently has trackage rights over the CW Branch and that WERR's lease of the Lines will continue to be subject to BNSF's trackage rights.
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
WERR certifies that the underlying lease and operation agreement does not contain any provision or agreement that would limit future interchange with a third-party connecting carrier. Further, WERR certifies that its annual rail revenues as a result of this transaction will not exceed $5 million, and it will not result in WERR's becoming a Class I or Class II rail carrier. Under 49 CFR 1150.32(b), a change in operator requires that notice be given to shippers. WERR certifies that notice of the change in operator was served on all known shippers on the Lines.
The earliest this transaction may be consummated is October 25, 2018, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than October 18, 2018 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36226, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on William A. Mullins, Baker & Miller PLLC, 2401 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20037.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
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
July 1-31, 2018.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436; email:
This notice lists the projects, described below, receiving approval for the consumptive use of water pursuant to the Commission's approval by rule process set forth in 18 CFR 806.22(e) and 806.22(f) for the time period specified above:
1. Seneca Resources Corporation, Pad ID: DCNR Tract 007 Pad D, ABR-201807001; Delmar Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 12, 2018.
2. Diversified Gas & Oil, LLC, Pad ID: Stubler Pad A, ABR-201305003.R1; Gamble Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 13, 2018.
3. SWN Production Company, LLC, Pad ID: GU 04 Williams Aeppli, ABR-201309001.R1; Herrick Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.9999 mgd; Approval Date: July 18, 2018.
4. SWN Production Company, LLC, Pad ID: Dropp-Range-Pad46, ABR-201308016.R1; Jackson Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.9990 mgd; Approval Date: July 27, 2018.
5. Repsol Oil & Gas USA, LLC, Pad ID: ALDERSON (05 269), ABR-201807002; Pike Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 6.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 25, 2018.
6. Repsol Oil & Gas USA, LLC, Pad ID: BROADLEAF HOLDINGS (01 115), ABR-201807003; Springfield, Troy, and Columbia Townships, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 6.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 25, 2018.
7. EXCO Resources (PA), LLC, Pad ID: Chaapel Hollow Unit, ABR-201305016.R1; Gamble Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 8.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 30, 2018.
8. EXCO Resources (PA), LLC, Pad ID: Poor Shot Pad 2 Unit, ABR-201309007.R1; Anthony Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 8.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 30, 2018.
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists the approved by rule projects rescinded by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in
July 1-31, 2018.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436; email:
This notice lists the projects, described below, being rescinded for the consumptive use of water pursuant to the Commission's approval by rule process set forth in 18 CFR 806.22(e) and 806.22(f) for the time period specified above:
1. EXCO Resources (PA), LLC, Pad ID: Snyder Unit #1, ABR-20090430.R1; Franklin Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Rescind Date: July 2, 2018.
2. EXCO Resources (PA), LLC, Pad ID: Kitzmiller Drilling Pad #1, ABR-20100546.R1; Jordan Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Rescind Date: July 2, 2018.
3. EXCO Resources (PA), LLC, Pad ID: Marquardt Drilling Pad #1, ABR-201008008.R1; Davidson Township, Sullivan County, Pa.; Rescind Date: July 2, 2018.
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists the minor modifications approved for a previously approved project by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in
July 1-31, 2018.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436; email:
This notice lists previously approved projects, receiving approval of minor modifications, described below, pursuant to 18 CFR 806.18 for the time period specified above:
1. Graymont (PA) Inc., Pleasant Gap Facility, Docket No. 20050306-2, Spring Township, Centre County, Pa.; approval to add Walker Township Water Association public water supply as an additional source of water for consumptive use; Approval Date: July 6, 2018.
2. Silver Springs Ranch, LLC, Docket No. 20170306-1, Monroe Township, Wyoming County, Pa.; approval authorizing the additional water use purpose of bulk supply to a horse training facility; Approval Date: July 20, 2018.
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
The FAA is considering a proposal to change portions of 18 different parcels with a total of 2.778 acres of airport land from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use and to authorize the sale of airport property located at General Wayne A. Downing Peoria International Airport, Peoria, IL. The aforementioned land is not needed for aeronautical use.
The 2.778 acres of land is in the Northeast section of the airport property and it covers the intersection of Dirksen Parkway and Middle Road. This property does not currently serve an aeronautical purpose. This area of property is currently Right of Way for the airport entrance road, Dirksen Parkway. If the airport receives permission from the FAA to release the property from aeronautical obligations, it intends on transferring this property to the Peoria County for continued use as Right of Way.
Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2018.
Documents are available for review by appointment at the FAA Chicago Airports District Office, Robert Lee, Program Manager, 2300 E Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018, Telephone: (847) 294-7526/Fax: (847) 294-7046.
Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or mailed to: Robert Lee, Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Chicago Airports District Office, 2300 E Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018, Telephone Number: (847) 294-7526/FAX Number: (847) 294-7046.
Robert Lee, Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Chicago Airports District Office, 2300 E Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018, Telephone Number: (847) 294-7526/FAX Number: (847) 294-7046.
In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title 49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the
The land consists of all or portions from eighteen (18) different parcels. All but two of these parcels were purchased by the airport with FAA participation. The parcels were acquired under grants 3-17-0080-21 and 3-17-0080-10 or without federal participation. The future use of the property is for roadway Right of Way.
The disposition of proceeds from the sale of the airport property will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published in the
This notice announces that the FAA is considering the release of the subject airport property at the Wayne A. Downing Peoria International Airport, Peoria, IL from federal land covenants, subject to a reservation for continuing right of flight as well as restrictions on the released property as required in FAA Order 5190.6B section 22.16. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the disposal of the subject airport property nor a determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.
Part of the southeast quarter of section 15 in township 8 north, range 7 east of the fourth principal meridian in Peoria County, Illinois. Said part being further described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of the southeast quarter of said section 15; thence north 88 degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds east along the north line of the said southeast quarter a distance of 1085.74 feet; thence south 01 degree 01 minute 22 seconds east a distance of 33.00 feet to the point of beginning, said point being on the south right of way line of County Highway D49 (Middle Road); thence north 88 degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds east along the said south right of way line a distance of 792.03 feet to a point on the east line of lot 28 of McCarty Acres; thence south 00 degree 29 minutes 22 seconds east along the said east line of lot 28 a distance of 60.24 feet to point on the proposed south right of way line of County Highway D49 (Dirksen Parkway); thence south 58 degrees 45 minutes 34 seconds west along the proposed south right of way line a distance of 230.39 feet to a point on the east line of lot 25 of said McCarty Acres; thence south 00 degree 29 minutes 22 seconds east along the said east line of lot 25 and proposed south right of way line a distance of 46.04 feet to a point at the beginning of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1080.00 feet and an arc length of 78.14 feet thence on a chord bearing of south 57 degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds west along the said proposed south right of way line a chord distance of 78.12 feet; thence south 85 degrees 10 minutes 24 seconds west along the said proposed south right of way line a distance of 128.86 feet; thence north 40 degrees 28 minutes 11 seconds west a distance of 108.19 feet to a point on the east line of lot 21 of McCarty Acres; thence north 00 degree 29 minutes 22 seconds west along the said east line of lot 21 a distance of 37.19 feet; thence north 55 degrees 21 minutes 36 seconds west a distance of 80.70 feet to a point; thence north 65 degrees 37 minutes 45 seconds west a distance of 218.22 feet to a point on the east line of lot 17 of McCarty Acres; thence north 81 degree 53 minutes 33 seconds west along the said proposed south right of way line a distance of 66.75 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2.524 acres more or less.
Basis of bearings are to the Illinois State Plane Coordinate system, west zone being the north line of the southeast quarter of section 15 at north 88 degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds east.
Part of lot 29 and lot 30 of McCarty Acres being a part of the southeast quarter of section 15 in township 8 north, range 7 east of the fourth principal meridian in Peoria County, Illinois. Said part being further described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of the southeast quarter of said section 15; thence north 88 degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds east along the north line of the said southeast quarter a distance of 1877.77 feet; thence south 01 degree 01 minute 22 seconds east a distance of 33.00 feet to the point of beginning, said point being on the south right of way line of County Highway D49 (Middle Road); thence north 88 degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds east along the said south right of way line and parallel with the said north line of the southeast quarter of section 15 a distance of 542.72 feet to a point at the beginning of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 150.00 feet and an arc length of 55.08 feet; thence on a chord bearing of south 80 degrees 30 minutes 11 seconds east a chord distance of 54.77 feet to a point on the proposed south right of way line of County Highway D49 (Middle Road); thence south 88 degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds west along the said proposed south right of way line and parallel with the north line of the southeast quarter of section 15 a distance of 352.62 feet; thence south 81 degrees 50 minutes 33 seconds west along the said proposed south right of way line a distance of 90.69 feet; thence south 74 degrees 49 minutes 17 seconds west along the said proposed south right of way line a distance of 159.37 feet to a point on the west line of said lot 29; thence north 00 degrees 29 minutes 22 seconds west along the said west line a distance of 60.24 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.254 acres more or less.
Basis of bearings are to the Illinois State Plane Coordinate System, west zone being the north line of the southeast quarter of section 15 at north 88 degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds east.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that FHWA will submit the collection of information described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The
Please submit comments by December 10, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number 2018-0043 by any of the following methods:
Peter Clark, 202-366-2025, or Arnold Feldman, 202-366-2028, Office of Real Estate Services, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is updating the entries of 462 persons on OFAC's Specially Designated National and Blocked Persons List (SDN List).
See
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202-622-2410.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On September 20, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13810 (E.O. 13810), “Imposing Additional Sanctions With Respect to North Korea.” Section 4 of E.O. 13810 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to impose sanctions on foreign financial institutions upon determining that the foreign financial institution has, on or after the effective date of E.O. 13810, knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant transaction, among others, on behalf of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13551 of August 30, 2010, Executive Order 13687 of January 2, 2015, Executive Order 13722 of March 15, 2016, or E.O. 13810, or of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13382 in connection with North Korea-related activities. Accordingly, OFAC has added the reference “Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210” to the SDN list entries for the 462 persons listed below.
1. CHA, Sung Jun (a.k.a. CH'A, Su'ng-chun), Beijing, China; DOB 04 Jun 1966; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 472434355 (individual) [DPRK4].
2. CHANG, Chang-ha (a.k.a. JANG, Chang Ha); DOB 10 Jan 1964; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; President of Second Academy of Natural Sciences (individual) [DPRK2] (Linked To: SECOND ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES).
3. CHANG, Kyong-hwa (a.k.a. JANG, Kyong Hwa); DOB 13 Nov 1951; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Official at Second Academy of Natural Sciences (individual) [DPRK2] (Linked To: SECOND ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES).
4. CHANG, Myong-Chin (a.k.a. JANG, Myong-Jin); DOB 1966; alt. DOB 1965; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (individual) [NPWMD].
5. CHANG, Wen-Fu (a.k.a. CHANG, Tony; a.k.a. ZHANG, Wen-Fu); DOB 01 Apr 1965; nationality Taiwan; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 211606395 (Taiwan) (individual) [NPWMD].
6. CHI, Yupeng, Room 301, Unit 1, No. 129 Jiangcheng Street, Yuanbao District, Dandong City, Liaoning Province, China; DOB 22 May 1969; nationality China; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport E27979708 (China); National ID No. 210602196905220510 (China); Chairman and Majority Owner, Dandong Zhicheng Metallic Material Co., Ltd. (individual) [DPRK3] (Linked To: DANDONG ZHICHENG METALLIC MATERIAL CO., LTD.).
7. CHO, Chun-ryong (a.k.a. JO, Chun Ryong); DOB 04 Apr 1960; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Chairman of the Second Economic Committee (individual) [DPRK2] (Linked To: SECOND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE).
8. CHO, Il-U (a.k.a. CHO, Ch'o'l; a.k.a. CHO, Il Woo; a.k.a. JO, Chol), Korea, North; DOB 10 May 1945; POB Musan, North Hamgyo'ng Province, North Korea; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 736410010 (Korea, North); Director of the Fifth Bureau of the Reconnaissance General Bureau (individual) [DPRK2].
9. CHO, Yon Chun (a.k.a. JO, Yon Jun), Korea, North; DOB 28 Sep 1937; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; First Vice Director of the Organization and Guidance Department (individual) [DPRK2].
10. CHOE, Chang Pong, Korea, North; DOB 02 Jun 1964; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 381320227 (Korea, North) expires 29 Jul 2016; Director of the Investigation Bureau of the Ministry of People's Security (individual) [DPRK2].
11. CHOE, Chun Yong (a.k.a. CH'OE, Ch'un-yo'ng), Moscow, Russia; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport 654410078 (Korea, North); Ilsim International Bank representative (individual) [DPRK3] (Linked To: ILSIM INTERNATIONAL BANK).
12. CHOE, Chun-sik (a.k.a. CHOE, Chun Sik; a.k.a. CH'OE, Ch'un-sik), Korea, North; DOB 12 Oct 1954; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: SECOND ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES).
13. CHOE, Hwi, Korea, North; DOB 01 Jan 1954 to 31 Dec 1955; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; First Vice Director of the Workers' Party of Korea Propaganda and Agitation Department (individual) [DPRK2].
14. CHOE, Pu Il (a.k.a. CH'OE, Pu-il; a.k.a. CHOI, Bu-il), Korea, North; DOB 06 Mar 1944; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Minister of People's Security (individual) [DPRK3] (Linked To: MINISTRY OF PEOPLE'S SECURITY).
15. CH'OE, So'k-min, Shenyang, China; DOB 25 Jul 1978; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Foreign Trade Bank of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea representative (individual) [DPRK2].
16. CHOE, Song Il, Vietnam; DOB 08 Jun 1973; citizen Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 472320665 (Korea, North) expires 26 Sep 2017; alt. Passport 563120356 (Korea, North) issued 19 Mar 2018; Tanchon Commercial Bank Representative in Vietnam (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: TANCHON COMMERCIAL BANK).
17. CHOE, Song Nam (a.k.a. CH'OE, So'ng-nam), Shenyang, China; DOB 07 Jan 1979; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 563320192 expires 09 Aug 2018; Korea Daesong Bank Representative (individual) [DPRK4].
18. CHU, Hyo'k (a.k.a. JU, Hyok), Vladivostok, Russia; DOB 23 Nov 1986; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport 836420186 (Korea, North) issued 28 Oct 2016 expires 28 Oct 2021; Foreign Trade Bank of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea representative (individual) [DPRK4].
19. CHU, Kyu-Chang (a.k.a. CHU, Kyu-Ch'ang; a.k.a. JU, Kyu-Chang); DOB 25 Nov 1928; POB Hamju County, South Hamgyong Province, Democratic People's Republic of Korea; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (individual) [NPWMD].
20. HAN, Jang Su (a.k.a. HAN, Chang-su), Moscow, Russia; DOB 08 Nov 1969; POB Pyongyang; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport 745420176 expires 19 Oct 2020; Foreign Trade Bank chief representative (individual) [NPWMD].
21. HAN, Kwon U (a.k.a. HAN, Kon U; a.k.a. HAN, Ko′n-u; a.k.a. HAN, Kwo′n-u), Zhuhai, China; DOB 21 Aug 1962; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 745434880; Korea Ryonbong General Corporation Representative in Zhuhai, China (individual) [DPRK2].
22. HO, Yong Il (a.k.a. HO′, Yo′ng-il), Dandong, China; DOB 09 Sep 1968; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (individual) [DPRK4].
23. HONG, Jinhua, China; DOB 19 Jan 1972; nationality China; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; National Foreign ID Number 210604197201190322 (China); Deputy General Manager, Dandong Hongxiang Industrial Development Co Ltd (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: DANDONG HONGXIANG INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO LTD).
24. HUISH, Irina Igorevna (a.k.a. BURLOVA, Irina), Russia; South Africa; DOB 18 Jan 1973; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Female (individual) [DPRK3] (Linked To: VELMUR MANAGEMENT PTE LTD).
25. HUSSAIN, Mavungal; DOB 03 Jun 1961; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (individual) [DPRK2] (Linked To: KOREA MINING DEVELOPMENT TRADING CORPORATION).
26. HWANG, Pyong So (a.k.a. HWANG, Pyo′ng-so′), Korea, North; DOB 1940; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vice Chairman of the National Defense Commission (individual) [DPRK2] (Linked To: NATIONAL DEFENSE COMMISSION).
27. HWANG, Su Man (a.k.a. HWANG, Kyong Nam); DOB 06 Apr 1955; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 472220033 (Korea, North) (individual) [DPRK2] (Linked To: KOREA MINING DEVELOPMENT TRADING CORPORATION).
28. HYON, Gwang Il (a.k.a. HYON, Kwang Il), Korea, North; DOB 27 May 1961; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Department Director at the National Aerospace Development Administration (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: NATIONAL AEROSPACE DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION).
29. JANG, Bom Su (a.k.a. JANG, Hyon U; a.k.a. JANG, Pom Su), Syria; DOB 15 Apr 1957; alt. DOB 22 Feb 1958; citizen Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Diplomatic Passport 836110034 expires 01 Jan 2020; Tanchon Commercial Bank Representative in Syria (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: TANCHON COMMERCIAL BANK).
30. JANG, Song Chol; DOB 12 Mar 1967; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; KOMID representative in Russia (individual) [DPRK2].
31. JANG, Sung Nam, Dalian, China; DOB 14 Jul 1970; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport 563120368 (Korea, North) issued 22 Mar 2013 expires 22 Mar 2018; Chief of the Tangun Trading Corporation branch in Dalian, China (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: KOREA TANGUN TRADING CORPORATION).
32. JANG, Yong Son; DOB 20 Feb 1957; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; KOMID Representative in Iran (individual) [DPRK2].
33. JI, Sang Jun (a.k.a. CHI, Sang-chun), Moscow, Russia; DOB 03 May 1971; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (individual) [DPRK4].
34. JO, Chol Song (a.k.a. CHO, Ch′o′l-so′ng), Dandong, China; DOB 25 Sep 1984; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport 654320502 expires 16 Sep 2019; Korea Kwangson Banking Corporation Deputy Representative (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: KOREA KWANGSON BANKING CORP).
35. JO, Kyong-Chol (a.k.a. CHO, Kyo′ng-ch′o′l), Korea, North; DOB 1944 to 1945; POB Korea, North; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; DPRK Director of Military Security Command (individual) [DPRK2].
36. JO, Yong Chol (a.k.a. CHO, Yong Chol), Syria; DOB 30 Sep 1973; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; North Korea's Ministry of State Security Official (individual) [DPRK2].
37. JO, Yong-Won (a.k.a. CHO, Yongwon), Korea, North; DOB 24 Oct 1957; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Vice Director of the Organization and Guidance Department (individual) [DPRK2].
38. JON, Myong Guk (a.k.a. CHO′N, Myo′ng-kuk; a.k.a. JON, Yong Sang), Syria; DOB 18 Oct 1976; alt. DOB 25 Aug 1976; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 4721202031 (Korea, North)
39. JONG, Man Bok (a.k.a. CHO′NG, Man-pok), Dandong, China; DOB 23 Dec 1958; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Korea Ryonbong General Corporation Representative in Dandong, China (individual) [DPRK2].
41. JONG, Yong Su, Korea, North; DOB 15 Dec 1950; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport 563310172; Minister of Labor (individual) [DPRK2].
42. KANG, Chol Su, Linjiang, China; DOB 13 Feb 1969; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 472234895 (Korea, North); Korea Ryonbong General Corporation Official (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: KOREA RYONBONG GENERAL CORPORATION).
43. KANG, Min, Beijing, China; DOB 07 May 1980; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport 563132918 expires 04 Feb 2018; Korea Daesong Bank representative (individual) [DPRK4].
44. KANG, Mun-kil (a.k.a. JIAN, WenJi), Korea, North; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport PS 472330208 (Korea, North) expires 04 Jul 2017 (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: NAMCHONGANG TRADING CORPORATION).
45. KANG, P′il-Hun (a.k.a. KANG, Phil Hun; a.k.a. KANG, Pil Hoon), Korea, North; DOB 11 Jun 1943; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Director of the General Political Bureau of the Ministry of People's Security (individual) [DPRK2].
46. KANG, Ryong; DOB 21 Aug 1968; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; KOMID official in Syria (individual) [DPRK2].
47. KANG, Song Nam, Korea, North; DOB 28 Jul 1962; POB North P'yo'ngan Province, North Korea; citizen Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 654410025 (Korea, North) expires 14 Oct 2019; Bureau Director (individual) [DPRK3] (Linked To: MINISTRY OF STATE SECURITY).
48. KIL, Jong Hun; DOB 20 Feb 1972; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 472410022; KOMID Representative in Namibia (individual) [DPRK2].
49. KIM, Chol (a.k.a. KIM, Ch'o'l), Dalian, China; DOB 27 Sep 1964; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Korea United Development Bank Representative (individual) [DPRK4].
50. KIM, Chol Nam, Korea, North; DOB 19 Feb 1970; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 563120238 (Korea, North); President of Korea Kumsan Trading Corporation (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: KOREA KUMSAN TRADING CORPORATION).
51. KIM, Chol Sam; DOB 11 Mar 1971; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Treasurer, Daedong Credit Bank (individual) [NPWMD].
52. KIM, Ho Kyu (a.k.a. KIM, Ho Gyu; a.k.a. KIM, Ho'-kyu; a.k.a. KIM, Ho-Kyu; a.k.a. PARK, Aleksei), Nakhodka, Russia; DOB 15 Sep 1970; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Korea Ryonbong General Corporation Official (individual) [DPRK2].
53. KIM, Hyok Chol (a.k.a. KIM, Hyo'k-ch'o'l), Zhuhai, China; DOB 09 Jul 1978; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 472235761 expires 06 Jun 2017; Korea United Development Bank representative (individual) [DPRK4].
54. KIM, Il-Nam (a.k.a. KIM, Il Nam), Korea, North; DOB 09 Apr 1958; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Chief, South Hamgyong Province, Ministry of State Security (individual) [DPRK2].
55. KIM, Jong Man (a.k.a. KIM, Cho'ng-man), Korea, North; Zhuhai, China; DOB 16 Jul 1956; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 918320780; Korea United Development Bank representative (individual) [DPRK4].
56. KIM, Jong Sik (a.k.a. KIM, Cho'ng-sik), Korea, North; DOB 01 Jan 1967 to 31 Dec 1969; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Deputy Director of the Workers' Party of Korea Military Industry Department (individual) [DPRK2].
57. KIM, Jong Un, Korea, North; DOB 08 Jan 1984; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea (individual) [DPRK3].
58. KIM, Jung Jong (a.k.a. KIM, Chung Chong), Vietnam; DOB 07 Nov 1966; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 199421147 (Korea, North) expires 29 Dec 2014; alt. Passport 381110042 (Korea, North) expires 25 Jan 2016; alt. Passport 563210184 (Korea, North) expires 18 Jun 2018; Tanchon Commercial Bank Representative in Vietnam (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: TANCHON COMMERCIAL BANK).
59. KIM, Kang Jin (a.k.a. KIM, Kang-chin), Korea, North; DOB 22 Apr 1961; POB Pyongyang, North Korea; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Director, External Construction Bureau (individual) [DPRK2].
60. KIM, Ki Nam, Korea, North; DOB 28 Aug 1929; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Director of the Workers' Party of Korea Propaganda and Agitation Department (individual) [DPRK2].
61. KIM, Kwang Chun; DOB 20 Apr 1967; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Korea Ryungseng Trading Corporation Representative in Shenyang, China (individual) [DPRK2].
62. KIM, Kwang Hyok, Burma; DOB 20 Apr 1970; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 654210025 (Korea, North); Korean Mining Development Trading Corporation Representative in Burma (individual) [DPRK2] (Linked To: KOREA MINING DEVELOPMENT TRADING CORPORATION).
63. KIM, Kwang Yon; DOB 30 Jul 1966; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 563210059 (individual) [DPRK2].
64. KIM, Kwang-Il, Beijing, China; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Tanchon Commercial Bank Deputy Representative to Beijing, China (individual) [NPWMD].
65. KIM, Kyong Hak (a.k.a. KIM, Kyo'ng-hak), Zhuhai, China; DOB 27 Nov 1973; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 654231856; Korea Ryonbong
66. KIM, Kyong Hyok (a.k.a. KIM, Kyo'ng-hyo'k), Shanghai, China; DOB 05 Nov 1985; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Cheil Credit Bank representative (individual) [DPRK4].
67. KIM, Kyong Il (a.k.a. KIM, Kyo'ng-il), Libya; DOB 01 Aug 1979; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport 836210029; Foreign Trade Bank of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea deputy chief representative in Libya (individual) [DPRK2].
68. KIM, Kyong Nam (a.k.a. KIM, Kyo'ng-Nam), Russia; DOB 11 Jul 1976; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Foreign Trade Bank of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Representative in Russia (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: FOREIGN TRADE BANK OF THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA).
69. KIM, Kyong Ok (a.k.a. KIM, Kyong Ok), Korea, North; DOB 01 Jan 1937 to 31 Dec 1938; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; First Vice Director of the Organization and Guidance Department (individual) [DPRK2].
70. KIM, Kyu; DOB 30 Jul 1968; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; KOMID External Affairs Officer (individual) [DPRK2].
71. KIM, Man Chun (a.k.a. KIM, Man-ch'un), No. 567 Xinshi Street, Linjiang City, China; DOB 25 May 1966; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport PS654320308; Korea Ryonbong General Corporation Representative in Linjiang, China (individual) [DPRK2].
72. KIM, Min Chol, Vietnam; DOB 21 Sep 1967; POB North Korea; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Diplomat at North Korean Embassy (individual) [DPRK2].
73. KIM, Mun Chol (a.k.a. KIM, Mun-ch'o'l), Dandong, China; DOB 25 Mar 1957; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Korea United Development Bank representative (individual) [DPRK3] (Linked To: KOREA UNITED DEVELOPMENT BANK).
74. KIM, Nam Ung, Moscow, Russia; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 654110043 (Korea, North); Ilsim International Bank representative (individual) [DPRK3] (Linked To: ILSIM INTERNATIONAL BANK).
75. KIM, Pyong Chan (a.k.a. KIM, Pyo'ng-ch'an), Korea, North; Zhuhai, China; DOB 09 Jun 1961; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Workers' Party of Korea Official (individual) [DPRK2].
76. KIM, Sang-ho, Yanji, China; DOB 16 May 1957; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 563337601; Korea Daesong Bank representative (individual) [DPRK4].
77. KIM, Se Gon; DOB 13 Nov 1969; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 472310104 (Korea, North); Representative of Ministry of Atomic Energy Industry (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: MINISTRY OF ATOMIC ENERGY INDUSTRY).
78. KIM, Sok Chol, Burma; DOB 08 May 1955; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 472310082; North Korean Ambassador to Burma (individual) [DPRK2].
79. KIM, Song (a.k.a. KIM, So'ng), Linjiang, China; DOB 11 Jan 1964; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Representative of the Korea Ryonbong General Corporation in Linjiang, China (individual) [DPRK2].
80. KIM, Song Chol (a.k.a. KIM, Hak Song); DOB 26 Mar 1968; alt. DOB 15 Oct 1970; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 654120219 (Korea, North) expires 24 Feb 2019; alt. Passport 381420565 (Korea, North) expires 23 Nov 2016 (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: KOREA MINING DEVELOPMENT TRADING CORPORATION).
81. KIM, Su-Kwang (a.k.a. KIM, Son-gwang; a.k.a. KIM, Son-kwang; a.k.a. KIM, Sou-gwang; a.k.a. KIM, Sou-kwang; a.k.a. KIM, Su-gwang); DOB 18 Aug 1976; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male (individual) [DPRK2].
82. KIM, Tong Chol (a.k.a. KIM, Tong-ch′o′l), Shenyang, China; DOB 28 Jan 1966; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Foreign Trade Bank of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea official (individual) [DPRK2].
83. KIM, Tong-chol, 34 Herbst Street, Windhoek, Namibia; DOB 07 Aug 1968; POB North Korea; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport 472336944 issued 10 Sep 2012 expires 10 Sep 2017; Managing Director, Mansudae Overseas Projects; Director, Mansudae Overseas Projects Architectural and Technical Services (PTY) Ltd.; Deputy Managing Director, Qingdao Construction (Namibia) CC (individual) [DPRK3] (Linked To: MANSUDAE OVERSEAS PROJECT GROUP OF COMPANIES; Linked To: MANSUDAE OVERSEAS PROJECTS ARCHITECTURAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES (PTY) LIMITED; Linked To: QINGDAO CONSTRUCTION (NAMIBIA) CC).
84. KIM, Tong-ho, Vietnam; DOB 18 Aug 1969; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport 745310111 (Korea, North); Tanchon Commercial Bank representative (individual) [DPRK3].
85. KIM, Tong-Myo′ng (a.k.a. KIM, CHIN-SO′K; a.k.a. KIM, HYOK CHOL; a.k.a. KIM, TONG MYONG; a.k.a. “KIM, JIN SOK”); DOB 1964; alt. DOB 28 Aug 1962; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 290320764 (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: TANCHON COMMERCIAL BANK).
86. KIM, Won Hong (a.k.a. KIM, Wo′n-hong), Korea, North; DOB 17 Jul 1945; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Minister of State Security (individual) [DPRK2].
87. KIM, Yo Jong (a.k.a. KIM, Yo′-cho′ng), Korea, North; DOB 26 Sep 1989; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Female; Vice Director of the Workers' Party of Korea Propaganda and Agitation Department (individual) [DPRK2].
88. KIM, Yong Chol (a.k.a. KIM, Yong-Chol; a.k.a. KIM, Young-Cheol; a.k.a. KIM, Young-Chol; a.k.a. KIM, Young-Chul); DOB circa 1947; alt. DOB circa 1946; alt. POB Pyongan-Pukto, North Korea; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (individual) [DPRK].
89. KIM, Yong Chol; DOB 18 Feb 1962; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; KOMID Representative in Iran (individual) [DPRK2].
90. KIM, Yong Su (a.k.a. KIM, Yo′ng-su), Vietnam; DOB 09 Feb 1969; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport 654435458 expires 26 Nov 2019; Chief Representative of the Marine Transport Office in Vietnam (individual) [DPRK2].
91. KIRAKOSYAN, Ruben Ruslanovich, Russia; DOB 03 Mar 1980; citizen Russia; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: GEFEST-M LLC; Linked To: KOREA TANGUN TRADING CORPORATION).
92. KO, Chol Man (a.k.a. KO, Ch′o′l-man), Shenyang, China; DOB 30 Sep 1967; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 472420180; Foreign Trade Bank of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea representative (individual) [DPRK2].
93. KO, Ch′o′l-Chae, Dalian, China; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Deputy Representative, KOMID (individual) [NPWMD].
94. KO, Il Hwan (a.k.a. KO, Il-hwan), Shenyang, China; DOB 28 Aug 1967; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport 927220424 expires 12 Jun 2022; Korea Daesong Bank Official (individual) [DPRK4].
95. KO, Tae Hun (a.k.a. KIM, Myong Gi); DOB 25 May 1972; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections
96. KOLCHANOV, Vasili Aleksandrovich (Cyrillic: КОЛЧАНОВ, Василий Александрович) (a.k.a. KOLCHANOV, Vasiliy Aleksandrovich; a.k.a. KOLCHANOV, Vasily); DOB 25 Mar 1946; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations,, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Profinet Director General (individual) [DPRK4] (Linked To: PROFINET PTE. LTD.).
97. KU, Ja Hyong (a.k.a. KU, Cha-hyo′ng), Libya; DOB 08 Sep 1957; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Foreign Trade Bank of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea chief representative in Libya (individual) [DPRK2].
98. KU, Sung Sop (a.k.a. KU, Seung Sub; a.k.a. KU, Su′ng-so′p; a.k.a. KU, Young Hyok), Shenyang, China; DOB 07 Nov 1959; POB Pyongan-bukdo, North Korea; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 321233 (Korea, North); Consul General, Shenyang, China (individual) [DPRK2].
99. KWAK, Chong-chol (a.k.a. KWAK, Jong-chol), Dubai, United Arab Emirates; DOB 01 Jan 1975; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport 563220533 (Korea, North) (individual) [DPRK4].
100. LAI, Leonard (a.k.a. LAI, Yong Chian); DOB 16 Jun 1958; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport E3251534E (Singapore) expires 20 Mar 2018 (individual) [DPRK].
102. LUO, Chuanxu, China; DOB 15 Jan 1986; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; National Foreign ID Number 210621198601152385 (China); Financial Manager, Dandong Hongxiang Industrial Development Co Ltd (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: DANDONG HONGXIANG INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO LTD).
103. MA, Xiaohong, China; DOB 15 Dec 1971; nationality China; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport G31122619 (China) issued 02 Sep 2008 expires 01 Sep 2018; National Foreign ID Number 210603197112150023 (China); Director of Dandong Hongxiang Industrial Development Co Ltd (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: DANDONG HONGXIANG INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO LTD).
104. MICHURIN, Igor Aleksandrovich, Russia; DOB 27 Jun 1978; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport 8908104469 (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: KOREA TANGUN TRADING CORPORATION; Linked To: ARDIS-BEARINGS LLC).
105. MIN, Byong Chol (a.k.a. MIN, Byong Chun; a.k.a. MIN, Byong-chol; a.k.a. MIN, Pyo′ng-ch′o′l), Korea, North; DOB 10 Aug 1948; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Member of the Worker's Party of Korea's Organization and Guidance Department (individual) [DPRK2].
106. MUN, Cho′ng-Ch′o′l, C/O Tanchon Commercial Bank, Saemaeul 1-Dong, Pyongchon District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Tanchon Commercial Bank Representative (individual) [NPWMD].
107. MUN, Kyong Hwan (a.k.a. MUN, Kyo′ng-hwan), Korea, North; Dandong, China; DOB 22 Aug 1967; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 381120660 expires 25 Mar 2016; Bank of East Land representative (individual) [DPRK4].
108. O, Chong Ok (a.k.a. O, Chong Euk; a.k.a. O, Chong-kuk), Korea, North; DOB 01 Jan 1953 to 31 Dec 1953; POB North Hamgyo′ng Province, North Korea; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Director of the First Bureau of the Reconnaissance General Bureau (individual) [DPRK2].
109. O, Kuk-Ryol (a.k.a. O, Ku′k-ryo′l), Korea, North; DOB 07 Jan 1930; POB Onso′ng County, North Hambuk Province, Democratic People's Republic of Korea; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vice Chairman of the National Defense Commission (individual) [NPWMD] [DPRK2] (Linked To: NATIONAL DEFENSE COMMISSION).
110. PAE, Won Uk (a.k.a. PAE, Wo′n-uk), Beijing, China; DOB 22 Aug 1969; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport 472120208 (Korea, North) expires 22 Feb 2017; Korea Daesong Bank representative (individual) [DPRK4].
111. PAEK, Chang-Ho (a.k.a. PAEK, Ch′ang-Ho; a.k.a. PAK, Chang-Ho); DOB 18 Jun 1964; POB Kaesong, DPRK; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 381420754 issued 07 Dec 2011 expires 07 Dec 2016 (individual) [NPWMD].
112. PAEK, Jong Sam (a.k.a. PAEK, Chong-sam), Shenyang, China; DOB 17 Jan 1964; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (individual) [DPRK4].
113. PAEK, Se-Bong (a.k.a. PAEK, Se Pong); DOB 21 Mar 1938; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Chairman, Second Economic Committee (individual) [NPWMD].
114. PAK, Bong Nam (a.k.a. LUI, Wai Ming; a.k.a. PAK, Pong Nam; a.k.a. PAK, Pong-nam), Shenyang, China; DOB 06 May 1969; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; ILSIM International Bank Representative in Shenyang, China (individual) [DPRK4].
115. PAK, Chol Nam (a.k.a. PAK, Ch'o'l-nam), Beijing, China; DOB 16 Jun 1971; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 745420413 expires 19 Nov 2020; Cheil Credit Bank representative in Beijing (individual) [DPRK4].
116. PAK, Chun Il, Egypt; DOB 28 Jul 1954; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 563410091 (Korea, North); North Korean Ambassador to Egypt (individual) [DPRK2].
117. PAK, Han Se (a.k.a. KANG, Myong Chol), Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 290410121 (Korea, North); Vice Chairman of the Second Economic Committee (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: SECOND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE).
118. PAK, Il-Kyu (a.k.a. PAK, Il-Gyu), Shenyang, China; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport 563120235; Korea Ryonbong General Corporation Official (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: KOREA PUGANG TRADING CORPORATION).
119. PAK, Kwang Hun (a.k.a. BAK, Gwang Hun; a.k.a. PAK, Gwang Hun; a.k.a. PAK, Kwang-hun), Vladivostok, Russia; DOB 01 Jan 1970 to 31 Dec 1970; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Representative of Korea Ryonbong General Corporation in Vladivostok, Russia (individual) [DPRK2].
120. PAK, Mun Il (a.k.a. PAK, Mun-il), Yanji, China; DOB 01 Jan 1965; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport
121. PAK, To-Chun (a.k.a. PAK, Do Chun; a.k.a. PAK, To'-Ch'un); DOB 09 Mar 1944; POB Nangim County, Chagang Province, Democratic People's Republic of Korea; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (individual) [NPWMD].
122. PAK, Tong Sok (a.k.a. PAK, Tong-So'k), Abkhazia, Georgia; DOB 15 Apr 1965; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 745120209 (Korea, North) expires 26 Feb 2020; Korea Ryonbong General Corporation Official (individual) [DPRK2].
123. PAK, Yong Sik (a.k.a. PAK, Yo'ng-sik), Korea, North; DOB 1950; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Member of the Workers' Party of Korea Central Military Commission (individual) [DPRK2] (Linked To: WORKERS' PARTY OF KOREA CENTRAL MILITARY COMMISSION).
124. PANG, Su Nam (a.k.a. PANG, So-nam; a.k.a. PANG, Sunam), Zhuhai, China; DOB 01 Oct 1964; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 472110138; ILSIM International Bank representative in Zhuhai, China (individual) [DPRK2] [DPRK4].
125. PARK, Jin Hyok (a.k.a. DAVID, Andoson; a.k.a. HENNY, Watson; a.k.a. KIM, Hyon U; a.k.a. KIM, Hyon Woo; a.k.a. KIM, Hyon Wu; a.k.a. PAK, Ch'in-hyo'k; a.k.a. PAK, Jin Hek; a.k.a. PAK, Jin Hyok); DOB 15 Aug 1984; alt. DOB 18 Oct 1984; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations,, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 290333974 (Korea, North) (individual) [DPRK3].
126. PISKLIN, Mikhail Yur'evich, Russia; DOB 01 Dec 1980; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport 71 0588176 (individual) [DPRK3].
127. RA, Kyong-Su (a.k.a. CHANG, MYONG HO; a.k.a. CHANG, MYONG-HO; a.k.a. CHANG, MYO'NG-HO), Beijing, China; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Tanchon Commercial Bank Representative to Beijing, China (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: TANCHON COMMERCIAL BANK).
128. RI, Chong Chol (a.k.a. RI, Jong Chol); DOB 12 Apr 1970; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 199110092 (Korea, North) expires 17 Mar 2014; alt. Passport 472220503 (Korea, North) expires 06 Jun 2018; alt. Passport 654220197 (Korea, North) expires 07 May 2019 (individual) [DPRK2] (Linked To: KOREA MINING DEVELOPMENT TRADING CORPORATION).
129. RI, Chun Hwan (a.k.a. RI, Ch'un-hwan), Zhuhai, China; DOB 21 Aug 1957; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 563233049 expires 09 May 2018; Foreign Trade Bank of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea representative (individual) [DPRK2].
130. RI, Chun Song (a.k.a. RI, Ch'un-so'ng), Beijing, China; DOB 30 Oct 1965; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 654133553 expires 11 Mar 2019; Foreign Trade Bank of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea representative (individual) [DPRK2].
131. RI, Ho Nam (a.k.a. RI, Ho-nam), Beijing, China; DOB 03 Jan 1967; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 654120210 expires 21 Feb 2019; Ryugyong Commercial Bank representative (individual) [DPRK4].
132. RI, Hong-Sop, c/o General Bureau of Atomic Energy, Haeudong, Pyongchen District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; DOB 1940; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (individual) [NPWMD].
133. RI, Jae Il (a.k.a. RI, Chae-Il), Korea, North; DOB 01 Jan 1934 to 31 Dec 1934; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; First Vice Director of the Workers' Party of Korea Propaganda and Agitation Department (individual) [DPRK2].
134. RI, Je-Son (a.k.a. RI, Che-Son), c/o General Bureau of Atomic Energy, Haeudong, Pyongchen District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; DOB 1938; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (individual) [NPWMD].
135. RI, Jong Won (a.k.a. RI, Cho'ng-Wo'n; a.k.a. RI, Jung Won), Moscow, Russia; DOB 22 Apr 1971; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport PS654320421 expires 11 Mar 2019 (individual) [DPRK2].
136. RI, Man Gon, Korea, North; DOB 1945; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (individual) [DPRK2].
137. RI, Myong Hun (a.k.a. RI, Myo'ng-hun), Korea, North; DOB 14 Mar 1969; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport 381420089 expires 11 Oct 2016 (individual) [DPRK2].
138. RI, Pyong Chol (a.k.a. RI, Pyo′ng-ch′o′l), Korea, North; DOB 01 Jan 1948 to 31 Dec 1948; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; First Vice Department Director of the Workers' Party of Korea Central Committee (individual) [DPRK2].
139. RI, Song Chol (a.k.a. RI, So′ng-ch′o′l), Korea, North; DOB 15 Aug 1959; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 290210124 (Korea, North) expires 24 May 2015; Ministry of People's Security Counselor (individual) [DPRK3] (Linked To: MINISTRY OF PEOPLE'S SECURITY).
140. RI, Song-hyok (a.k.a. LI, Cheng He), Beijing, China; DOB 19 Mar 1965; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport 654234735 (Korea, North) (individual) [DPRK3].
141. RI, Su Yong, Cuba; DOB 25 Jun 1968; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport 654310175; Korea Ryonbong General Corporation Official (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: KOREA RYONBONG GENERAL CORPORATION).
142. RI, Thae Chol (a.k.a. RI, Tae-Chol; a.k.a. RI, T′ae-Ch′o′l); DOB 01 Jan 1947 to 31 Dec 1947; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; DPRK First Vice Minister of People's Security (individual) [DPRK2] (Linked To: KOREAN PEOPLE'S ARMY).
143. RI, Tok Jin (a.k.a. RI, To′k-chin), Ji′an, China; DOB 26 Jul 1957; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Korea Ryonbong General Corporation Representative in Ji′an, China (individual) [DPRK2].
144. RI, U′n-so′ng (a.k.a. RI, Eun Song; a.k.a. RI, Un Song), Moscow, Russia; DOB 23 Jul 1969; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Korea United Development Bank representative (individual) [DPRK4].
145. RI, Won Ho, Egypt; DOB 17 Jul 1964; citizen Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 381310014 (Korea, North) expires 12 Jul 2016; North Korea's Ministry of State Security Official (individual) [DPRK2].
146. RI, Yong Mu (a.k.a. RI, Yong-Mu), Korea, North; DOB 25 Jan 1925; POB South Pyo′ngan Province, Pyo′ngso′ng; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vice Chairman of the National Defense Commission (individual) [DPRK2] (Linked To: NATIONAL DEFENSE COMMISSION).
147. RYANG, Tae Chol (a.k.a. RYANG, Tae-ch′o′l), Tumen, China; DOB 07 Jan 1969; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Representative of the Korea Ryonbong General Corporation in Tumen, China (individual) [DPRK2].
148. RYOM, Hui-bong (a.k.a. RYO′M, Hu′i-pong), Dubai, United Arab Emirates; DOB 18 Sep 1961; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport 745120026 (Korea, North) (individual) [DPRK4].
149. RYU, Jin; DOB 07 Aug 1965; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 563410081; KOMID official in Syria (individual) [DPRK2].
150. SERBIN, Andrey, Russia; DOB 01 Nov 1986; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male (individual) [DPRK3].
151. SIN, Yong Il (a.k.a. SHIN, Yong Il; a.k.a. SIN, Yo′ng Il), Korea, North; DOB 28 Feb 1948; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport PD654210116 (Korea, North); Deputy Director of the Military Security Command (individual) [DPRK2].
152. SON, Jong Hyok (a.k.a. SON, Min), Egypt; DOB 20 May 1980; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: KOREA MINING DEVELOPMENT TRADING CORPORATION).
153. SON, Mun San; DOB 23 Jan 1951; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; External Affairs Bureau Chief, General Bureau of Atomic Energy (individual) [NPWMD].
154. STEIGER, Jakob, c/o KOHAS AG, Fribourg, FR, Switzerland; DOB 27 Apr 1941; POB Altstatten, SG, Switzerland; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (individual) [NPWMD].
155. SU, Lu-Chi (a.k.a. TSAI SU, Lu-Chi), C/O TRANS MERITS CO. LTD., Taipei, Taiwan; C/O GLOBAL INTERFACE COMPANY INC., Taipei, Taiwan; DOB 07 Feb 1950; alt. DOB Nov 1950; POB Yun Lin Hsien, Taiwan; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 210215095 (Taiwan); Corporate Officer (individual) [NPWMD].
156. SUN, Sidong, Liaoning, China; DOB 11 May 1976; POB Dandong, China; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Gender Male; Passport G55296890 (China) issued 15 Sep 2011 expires 14 Sep 2021; National ID No. 210623197605112215 (individual) [DPRK4].
158. TSAI, Hsein Tai (a.k.a. TSAI, ALEX H.T.), C/O TRANS MERITS CO. LTD, Taipei, Taiwan; C/O GLOBAL INTERFACE COMPANY INC., Taipei, Taiwan; DOB 08 Aug 1945; POB Tainan, Taiwan; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport 131134049 (Taiwan); General Manager—GLOBAL INTERFACE COMPANY INC. (individual) [NPWMD].
160. YO′N, Cho′ng-Nam, Dalian, China; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Chief Representative, KOMID (individual) [NPWMD].
161. YU, Chol U, Korea, North; DOB 08 Aug 1959; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Director, National Aerospace Development Administration (individual) [DPRK2] (Linked To: NATIONAL AEROSPACE DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION).
162. YU, Kwang Ho; DOB 18 Oct 1956; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (individual) [DPRK2].
163. YUN, Ho-Jin (a.k.a. YUN, Ho-Chin), c/o Namchongang Trading Corporation, Pyongyang, Korea, North; DOB 13 Oct 1944; nationality Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (individual) [NPWMD].
164. ZHOU, Jianshu (a.k.a. CHOW, Tony), China; DOB 15 Jul 1971; nationality China; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Passport E09598913 (China) issued 14 Apr 2014 expires 13 Apr 2024; National Foreign ID Number 210602197107153012 (China); General Manager, Dandong Hongxiang Industrial Development Co Ltd (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: DANDONG HONGXIANG INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO LTD).
1. 7-28 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8898831 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: YUSONG SHIPPING CO).
2. ACADEMY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE SCIENCE, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
3. AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK4].
4. AIR KORYO (a.k.a. AIRKORYO), Sunan District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Swissotel, Hongkong-Macau Center, Dong Si Shi Tiao Li Jiao Qiao, Beijing 10027, China; Chilbosan Hotel, No 81, Shyiwei Road, Heping District, Shenyang, China; Room 412, XinHui Bldg, No 1197 Rd Husong, District SongJiang, Shanghai, China; Soon Vijai Conominun, Room 208, Floor 2, New Petchburi Road, Khwaeng Bangkapi, Huai Khwang, Bangkok 10310, Thailand; Airport, 45, Portovaya Street, Artyom, Primorski Krai 692760, Russia; Mosfilimovskaya 72, Moscow 101000, Russia; Friedrichstr 106B, Berlin 10117, Germany; 20-114, Level 20, Menara Safuan, No.80, Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur 50450, Malaysia; Office 10, 2nd floor, Mghateer complex 31, Block 40, Al Farwaniyah, Kuwait; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
5. AM NOK GANG (a.k.a. AP ROK GANG) General Cargo Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8132835 (vessel) [DPRK].
6. AMROGGANG DEVELOPMENT BANK (a.k.a. AMNOKKANG DEVELOPMENT BANK), Tongan-dong, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
7. AN SAN 1 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration
8. AO NNK-PRIMORNEFTEPRODUCT (a.k.a. IPC-PRIMORNEFTEPRODUCT JSC; a.k.a. NNK-PRIMORNEFTEPRODUKT, AO; a.k.a. OAO PRIMORNEFTEPRODUCT), 55 Ul. Fontannaya, Vladivostok, Primorskiy Krai 690091, Russia; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3] (Linked To: INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM COMPANY).
9. ARDIS-BEARINGS LLC, Office 35, Number2, 1/13/6 Pokrovka Street, Moscow 101000, Russia; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD] (Linked To: KOREA TANGUN TRADING CORPORATION).
10. ASIA BRIDGE 1 8,015DWT; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8916580 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: HUAXIN SHIPPING HONGKONG LTD).
11. BAEK MA KANG General Cargo Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 7944683 (vessel) [DPRK].
12. BANK OF EAST LAND (a.k.a. DONGBANG BANK; a.k.a. TONGBANG BANK; a.k.a. TONGBANG U'NHAENG), PO Box 32, BEL Building, Jonseung-Dong, Moranbong District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; SWIFT/BIC BOELKPPY; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK].
14. BELLA Russia flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations,, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8808264 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: GUDZON SHIPPING CO LLC).
15. BOGATYR Russia flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations,, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9085730 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: GUDZON SHIPPING CO LLC).
16. CENTRAL BANK OF THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA, 58-1 Mansu-dong, Sungri Street, Central District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
18. CHEIL CREDIT BANK (a.k.a. FIRST CREDIT BANK; f.k.a. “KYONGYONG CREDIT BANK”), 3-18 Pyongyang Information Center, Potonggang District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Beijing, China; Shenyang, China; Shanghai, China; SWIFT/BIC KYCBKPPY; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK4].
19. CH'OLHYO'N OVERSEAS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Kuwait; Algeria; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
20. CHON MA SAN Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8660313 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA ACHIM SHIPPING CO).
21. CHON MYONG 1 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8712362 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: CHONMYONG SHIPPING CO).
22. CHONG BONG Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8909575 (vessel) [DPRK3] (Linked To: CHONGBONG SHIPPING CO LTD).
23. CHONG CHON GANG General Cargo Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 7937317 (vessel) [DPRK].
24. CHONG RIM 2 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8916293 (vessel) [DPRK3] (Linked To: OCEAN BUNKERING JV CO).
25. CHONGBONG SHIPPING CO LTD, Room 502, 90, Ponghak-dong, Pyongchon-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 5878589 [DPRK3].
26. CHONGCHONGANG SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED (a.k.a. CHONG CHON GANG SHIPPING CO. LTD; a.k.a. CHONGCHONGANG SHIPPING CO LTD), 817, Haeun, Donghung-dong, Central District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; 817, Haeun, Tonghun-dong, Chung-gu, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Identification Number IMO 5342883 [DPRK].
27. CHONMYONG SHIPPING CO (a.k.a. CHON MYONG SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED), Kalrimgil 2-dong, Mangyongdae-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Saemaul 2-dong, Pyongchon-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5571322 [DPRK4].
28. CK INTERNATIONAL LTD, c/o Korea Uljibong Shipping Co., Jongbaek 1-dong, Rakrang-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Room 9, Unit A, 3rd Floor, Cheong Sun Tower, 116-118, Wing Lok Street, Sheung Wan, Hong Kong; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5980332 [DPRK4].
29. COMMERCIAL BANK AGROSOYUZ (Cyrillic: КОММЕРЧЕСКИЙ ВАНК АГРОСОЮЗ) (a.k.a. AGROSOYUZ (Cyrillic: АГРОСОЮЗ); a.k.a. AGROSOYUZ LLC (Cyrillic: АГРОСОЮЗ ООО); a.k.a. LLC COMMERCIAL BANK AGROSOYUZ (Cyrillic: ООО КОММЕРЧЕСКИЙ ВАНК АГРОСОЮЗ; Cyrillic: ООО КВ АГРОСОЮЗ)), Ulanskiy pereulok, number 13 building 1,
30. DAEDONG CREDIT BANK (a.k.a. DAE-DONG CREDIT BANK; a.k.a. DCB; a.k.a. TAEDONG CREDIT BANK), Suite 401, Potonggang Hotel, Ansan-Dong, Pyongchon District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Ansan-dong, Botongang Hotel, Pongchon, Pyongyang, Korea, North; SWIFT/BIC DCBKKPPY; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
31. DAEWON INDUSTRIES (a.k.a. DAEWON INDUSTRY COMPANY; a.k.a. TAEWO'N INDUSTRIES), Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
32. DAI HONG DAN General Cargo Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 7944695 (vessel) [DPRK].
35. DANDONG DONGYUAN INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. (a.k.a. DANDONG DONGYUAN INDUSTRIAL CO.; a.k.a. DANDONG DONGYUAN INDUSTRY CO., LTD.), No. 34-7, Zhenba Street, Zhenxing District, Dandong 118001, China; Rm 3002 No 99 3 1 Binjiang Middle Rd, Zhenxing District, Dandong, China; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; D-U-N-S Number 542957624 [DPRK4].
36. DANDONG HONGDA TRADE CO. LTD., China; Room 301, No. 1 Building, Business & Tourist Section, Dandong, Liaoning, China; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK4].
37. DANDONG HONGXIANG INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO LTD, Dandong, China; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
38. DANDONG JINXIANG TRADE CO., LTD. (a.k.a. CHINA DANDONG KUMSANG TRADE COMPANY, LIMITED; a.k.a. DANDONG METAL COMPANY; a.k.a. JINXIANG TRADING COMPANY), Room 303, Unit 2, Building Number 3, Number 99 Binjiang Lu (Road), Zhenxing District, Dandong, China; Room 303-01, Number 99-3, Binjiang Zhong Lu (Road), Dandong, China; Number 5, Tenth Street, Zhenxing District, Dandong, Liaoning, China; 245-11, Number 1 Wanlian Road, Shenhe District, Shenyang, China; Room 1101, No B, Jiadi Building, Business and Tourist, China; Room 303, Unit 2, 3 Haolou, Building 99 Binjiang Middle Rd., Zhenxing, Dandong, Liaoning 118000, China; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Nationality of Registration China [DPRK4].
39. DANDONG KEHUA ECONOMY & TRADE CO., LTD. (a.k.a. DANDONG KEHUA ECONOMIC AND TRADE CO. LTD.), China; Room 102, 1/F, Antai Garden, Zhenxing District, Dandong, Liaoning 118000, China; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK4].
40. DANDONG RICH EARTH TRADING CO., LTD., Jiadi Square, Number 64, Binjiang Middle Road, Room 1001, Building B, Dandong City, Liaoning, China; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD] (Linked To: KOREA KUMSAN TRADING CORPORATION).
42. DANDONG XIANGHE TRADING CO., LTD. (a.k.a. DANDONG XIANGHE TRADING CORPORATION; a.k.a. DANDONG XIANGHE TRADING LTD. CO; a.k.a. XIANGHE TRADE CO., LTD.), China; No. 603, 2F, Jiadi Square, Developing Zone, Dandong, Liaoning, China; Beida Rd., Pingxiang City, Chongzuo, Guangxi 532600, China; Room 703, No. 7 Building, Fangba, Yanjiang Development Zone, Dandong, China; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK4].
45. DAWN MARINE MANAGEMENT CO LTD, Changgyong 2-dong, Sosong-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Nationality of Registration Korea, North; Company Number 5926921 [DPRK4].
46. DAWNLIGHT General Cargo Mongolia flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9110236 (vessel) [DPRK].
47. DCB FINANCE LIMITED, Akara Building, 24 de Castro Street, Wickhams Cay I, Road Town, Tortola, Virgin Islands, British; Dalian, China; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
48. DOK CHON General Cargo Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 7411260 (vessel) [DPRK].
49. DONG FENG 6 5,515DWT Tanzania flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9008201 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: SHANGHAI DONGFENG SHPG CO LTD).
50. EKO DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT COMPANY (a.k.a. EKO DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT FOOD COMPANY; a.k.a. EKO IMPORT AND EXPORT COMPANY), 35 St. Abd al-Aziz al-Sud, al-Manial, Cairo, Egypt; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK2].
51. EVER BRIGHT 88 Sierra Leone flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8914934 (vessel) [DPRK] (Linked To: OCEAN MARITIME MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED).
52. EVER GLORY Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8909915 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA MARINE & INDUSTRIAL TRDG).
53. EXTERNAL CONSTRUCTION BUREAU (a.k.a. EXTERNAL CONSTRUCTION GENERAL COMPANY; a.k.a. EXTERNAL CONSTRUCTION GUIDANCE BUREAU), Korea, North; Kuwait; Qatar; United Arab Emirates; Oman; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
54. FIRST OIL JV CO LTD, Jongbaek 1-dong, Rakrang-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5963351 [DPRK4].
55. FOREIGN TRADE BANK OF THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA (a.k.a. KOREA TRADE BANK; a.k.a. MOOYOKBANK; a.k.a. NORTH KOREA'S FOREIGN TRADE BANK), FTB Building, Jungsong-dong, Central District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; SWIFT/BIC FTBDKPPY; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD] [DPRK3].
56. GEFEST-M LLC, Office 401, Structure 1, Building 1, Chermyanskaya Street, Moscow 127081, Russia; Office Space 5, Room 18, Building 5/7 Rozhdestvenka Street, Moscow 107031, Russia; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD] (Linked To: KOREA TANGUN TRADING CORPORATION).
57. GENERAL BUREAU OF ATOMIC ENERGY (a.k.a. GBAE; a.k.a. GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY), Haeudong, Pyongchen District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
58. GLOBAL INTERFACE COMPANY INC. (f.k.a. TRANS SCIENTIFIC CORP.), 9F-1, No. 22, Hsin Yi Rd., Sec. 2, Taipei, Taiwan; 1st Floor, No. 49, Lane 280, Kuang Fu S. Road, Taipei, Taiwan; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Business Registration Document #12873346 (Taiwan) [NPWMD].
59. GOLD STAR 3 Cambodia flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8405402 (vessel) [DPRK] (Linked To: OCEAN MARITIME MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED).
60. GOO RYONG Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel
61. GOORYONG SHIPPING CO LTD (f.k.a. GOORYONG SHIPPING BANGKOK), Changgyong 2-dong, Sosong-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Warranton Ville 458Soi 5Pattanakan Soi 44Suanluang, Bangkok 10250, Thailand; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5055293 [DPRK4].
62. GRAND KARO Cambodia flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8511823 (vessel) [DPRK] (Linked To: OCEAN MARITIME MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED).
63. GREEN PINE ASSOCIATED CORPORATION (a.k.a. CHO'NGSONG UNITED TRADING COMPANY; a.k.a. CHONGSONG YONHAP; a.k.a. CH'O'NGSONG YO'NHAP; a.k.a. CHOSUN CHAWO′N KAEBAL T′UJA HOESA; a.k.a. JINDALLAE; a.k.a. KU′MHAERYONG COMPANY LTD; a.k.a. NATURAL RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION; a.k.a. SAENGP′IL COMPANY), c/o Reconnaissance General Bureau Headquarters, Hyongjesan-Guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Nungrado, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK].
64. GUDZON SHIPPING CO LLC (a.k.a. LLC GUDZON SHIPPING CO; a.k.a. OOO GUDZON SHIPPING CO; a.k.a. SK GUDZON, OOO), ul Tigorovaya 20A, Vladivostok, Primorskiy kray 690091, Russia; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5753988 [DPRK4].
65. HAEJIN SHIP MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, Tonghung-dong, Chung-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Tonghung-dong, Central District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; email address
67. HANA ELECTRONICS JVC (a.k.a. HANA ELECTRONIC JV COMPANY; a.k.a. HANA ELECTRONICS), Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK4].
68. HAO FAN 2 11,658DWT; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8747604 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: SHEN ZHONG INTERNATIONAL SHPG).
69. HAO FAN 6 13,500DWT; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8628597 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: SHEN ZHONG INTERNATIONAL SHPG).
70. HAP JANG GANG 6 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9066540 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: HAPJANGGANG SHIPPING CORP).
71. HAPJANGGANG SHIPPING CORP, Kumsong 3-dong, Mangyongdae-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5787684 [DPRK4].
72. HESONG TRADING CORPORATION, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
73. HOE RYONG Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9041552 (vessel) [DPRK3] (Linked To: HOERYONG SHIPPING CO LTD).
74. HOERYONG SHIPPING CO LTD, 108, Pongnam-dong, Pyongchon-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 5817786 [DPRK3].
75. HONG KONG ELECTRONICS (a.k.a. HONG KONG ELECTRONICS KISH CO), Sanaee St., Kish Island, Iran; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
77. HUA FU 10,030DWT Panama flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9020003 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: CHANG AN SHIPPING & TECHNOLOGY).
79. HWA SONG Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8217685 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: HWASONG SHIPPING CO LTD).
80. HWANG GUM SAN 2 General Cargo Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8405270 (vessel) [DPRK].
81. HWASONG SHIPPING CO LTD, Changgyong dong, Sosong-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 543400 [DPRK4].
82. HYOK SIN 2 Bulk Carrier Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8018900 (vessel) [DPRK].
83. ILSIM INTERNATIONAL BANK, Pyongyang, Korea, North; SWIFT/BIC ILSIKPPY; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
84. INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM COMPANY (a.k.a. AKTSIONERNOE OBSHCHESTVO 'NEZAVISIMAYA NEFTEGAZOVAYA KOMPANIYA'; a.k.a. “NNK, AO”), 1 Arbatskaya Square, Moscow 119019, Russia; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
85. INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, Jongpyong-Dong, Pyong Chon District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK4].
86. JANG GYONG Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8203933 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: DAWN MARINE MANAGEMENT CO LTD).
87. JANG JA SAN CHONG NYON HO Bulk Carrier Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8133530 (vessel) [DPRK].
88. JH 86 Cambodia flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8602531 (vessel) [DPRK] (Linked To: OCEAN MARITIME MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED).
89. JI SONG 6 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8898740 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: PHYONGCHON SHIPPING & MARINE).
90. JI SONG 8 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8503228 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: PHYONGCHON SHIPPING & MARINE).
91. JIN TAI Sierra Leone flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9163154 (vessel) [DPRK] (Linked To: OCEAN MARITIME MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED).
92. JIN TENG Sierra Leone flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9163166 (vessel) [DPRK] (Linked To: OCEAN MARITIME MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED).
94. JINMYONG JOINT BANK, Korea, North; Dalian, China; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK4].
95. JINSONG JOINT BANK, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK4].
96. JON JIN 2 Bulk Carrier Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8018912 (vessel) [DPRK].
97. KANG SONG 1 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 6908096 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA KUMBYOL TRADING COMPANY).
98. KANGBONG TRADING CORPORATION, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
99. KINGLY WON INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD., Marshall Islands; Trust Company Complex, Ajeltake Road, Ajeltake Island, Majuro MH 96960, Marshall Islands; Taiwan; 8th Floor, Number 466, Section 2, Neihu Road, Taipei, Taiwan; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Commercial Registry Number 90132 (Marshall Islands) [DPRK3] (Linked To: TSANG, Yung Yuan).
100. KOHAS AG, Route des Arsenaux 15, Fribourg, FR 1700, Switzerland; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; C.R. No. CH-217.0.135.719-4 (Switzerland) [NPWMD].
101. KOREA ACHIM SHIPPING CO, Sochang-dong, Chung-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5936312 [DPRK4].
102. KOREA ANSAN SHIPPING COMPANY (a.k.a. KOREA ANSAN SHPG CO), Pyongchon 1-dong, Pyongchon-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5676084 [DPRK4].
103. KOREA COMPLEX EQUIPMENT IMPORT CORPORATION, Rakwon-dong, Pothonggang District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
104. KOREA COMPUTER CENTER (a.k.a. CHOSON COMPUTER CENTER; a.k.a. CHUNG SUN COMPUTER CENTER; a.k.a. KOREA COMPUTER COMPANY), Pyongyang, Korea, North; Germany; China; Syria; India; United Arab Emirates; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
105. KOREA DAEBONG SHIPPING CO, Ansan 1-dong, Pyongchon-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk:
106. KOREA DAESONG BANK (a.k.a. CHOSON TAESONG UNHAENG; a.k.a. TAESONG BANK), Segori-dong, Gyongheung St., Potonggang District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; SWIFT/BIC KDBKKPPY; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; PHONE 850 2 381 8221; PHONE 850 2 18111 ext. 8221; FAX 850 2 381 4576; TELEX 360230 and 37041 KDP KP; TGMS daesongbank; EMAIL
107. KOREA DAESONG GENERAL TRADING CORPORATION (a.k.a. DAESONG TRADING; a.k.a. DAESONG TRADING COMPANY; a.k.a. KOREA DAESONG TRADING COMPANY; a.k.a. KOREA DAESONG TRADING CORPORATION), Pulgan Gori Dong 1, Potonggang District, Pyongyang City, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; PHONE 850 2 18111 8204/8208; PHONE 850 2 381 8208/4188; FAX 850 2 381 4431/4432; EMAIL
108. KOREA EXPO JOINT VENTURE (a.k.a. CHOSUN EXPO; a.k.a. CHOSUN EXPO JOINT VENTURE; a.k.a. KOREA EXPO JOINT VENTURE CORPORATION), Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations,, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
109. KOREA FOREIGN TECHNICAL TRADE CENTER, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
110. KOREA GENERAL CORPORATION FOR EXTERNAL CONSTRUCTION, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
111. KOREA HAEGUMGANG TRADING CORPORATION (a.k.a. HAEGU'MGANG TRADING COMPANY; a.k.a. KOREA RIMYONGSU TRADING CORPORATION; a.k.a. NAEGU'NGANG TRADING COMPANY), Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK2].
112. KOREA HEUNGJIN TRADING COMPANY (a.k.a. HUNJIN TRADING CO.), Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
113. KOREA HYOKSIN TRADING CORPORATION (a.k.a. KOREA HYOKSIN EXPORT AND IMPORT CORPORATION), Rakwon-dong, Pothonggang District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
114. KOREA INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL JOINT VENTURE COMPANY (a.k.a. CHOSON INTERNATIONAL CHEMICALS JOINT OPERATION COMPANY; a.k.a. CHOSUN INTERNATIONAL CHEMICALS JOINT OPERATION COMPANY; a.k.a. INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL JOINT VENTURE CORPORATION), Hamhung, South Hamgyong Province, Korea, North; Man gyongdae-kuyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Mangyungdae-gu, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
115. KOREA KUMBYOL TRADING COMPANY (a.k.a. KUMBYOL TRADING; a.k.a. KUMBYOL TRADING COMPANY OF NORTH KOREAN WORKERS' PARTY), Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK4].
116. KOREA KUMSAN TRADING CORPORATION, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD] (Linked To: GENERAL BUREAU OF ATOMIC ENERGY).
117. KOREA KUMUNSAN SHIPPING CO, Pongnam-dong, Pyongchon-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5110478 [DPRK4].
118. KOREA KWANGSON BANKING CORP (a.k.a. KKBC), Jungson-dong, Sungri Street, Central District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
119. KOREA KWANGSONG TRADING CORPORATION, Rakwon-dong, Pothonggang District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
120. KOREA MARINE & INDUSTRIAL TRDG (a.k.a. KOREA MARINE AND INDUSTRIAL TRDG), Changgyong 2-dong, Sosong-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5928635 [DPRK4].
121. KOREA MINING DEVELOPMENT TRADING CORPORATION (a.k.a. CHANGGWANG SINYONG CORPORATION; a.k.a. DPRKN MINING DEVELOPMENT TRADING COOPERATION; a.k.a. EXTERNAL TECHNOLOGY GENERAL CORPORATION; a.k.a. KOREA KUMRYONG TRADING COMPANY; a.k.a. KOREAN MINING AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; a.k.a. NORTH KOREAN MINING DEVELOPMENT TRADING CORPORATION; a.k.a. “KOMID”), Central District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Beijing, China; Moscow, Russia; Tehran, Iran; Damascus, Syria; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD] [DPRK2].
122. KOREA MYONGDOK SHIPPING CO, Chilgol 2-dong, Mangyongdae-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5985863 [DPRK4].
123. KOREA NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION (a.k.a. KOREA FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANY; a.k.a. KOREA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY), Central District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
124. KOREA OCEAN SHIPPING AGENCY, Moranbong District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Namp'o Branch, Namp'o, South P'yo'ngan Province, Korea, North; Hungnam Branch, Hungnam, South Hamgyong Province, Korea, North; Chongjin Branch, Songphyong District, Chongjin, North Hamgyong Province, Korea, North; Haeju Branch, Haeju, South Hwanghae Province, Korea, North; Songnim Branch, Songnim, North Hwanghae Province, Korea, North; Wonsan Branch, Wonsan, Kangwon Province, Korea, North; Rason Branch, Rason, North Hamgyong Province, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
125. KOREA OIL EXPLORATION CORPORATION (a.k.a. CHOSUN OIL EXPLORATION COMPANY; a.k.a. KOREA OIL EXPLORATION COMPANY; a.k.a. “KOEC”), Ulam Dong, Taedonggang District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
126. KOREA PUGANG TRADING CORPORATION, Rakwon-dong, Pothonggang District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
127. KOREA RUNGRADO GENERAL TRADING CORPORATION (a.k.a. RUNGRADO TRADE COMPANY), Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
128. KOREA RUNGRADO RYONGAK TRADING CO, Pulgunkori 2-dong, Potonggang-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Nationality of Registration Korea, North; Company Number 5787653 [DPRK4].
129. KOREA RUNGRADO SHIPPING CO, Pulgunkori 1-dong, Potonggang-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Nationality of Registration Korea, North; Company Number 1414592 [DPRK4].
130. KOREA RYONBONG GENERAL CORPORATION (a.k.a. KOREA YONBONG GENERAL CORPORATION; f.k.a. LYONGAKSAN GENERAL TRADING CORPORATION), Pot'onggang District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Rakwon-dong, Pothonggang District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
131. KOREA RYONGWANG TRADING CORPORATION (a.k.a. KOREA RYENGWANG TRADING CORPORATION), Rakwon-dong, Pothonggang District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
132. KOREA RYONHA MACHINERY JOINT VENTURE CORPORATION (a.k.a. CHOSUN YUNHA MACHINERY JOINT
133. KOREA SAMILPO SHIPPING CO, Tonghung-dong, Chung-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 1701459 [DPRK3].
134. KOREA SAMJONG SHIPPING CO, Tonghung-dong, Chung-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5954061 [DPRK4].
135. KOREA SAMMA SHPG CO (a.k.a. KOREA SAMMA SHIPPING CO), Rakrang 3-dong, Rakrang-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5145892 [DPRK4].
136. KOREA SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION CORPORATION (a.k.a. NAM NAM GENERAL CORPORATION; a.k.a. NAM-NAM (SOUTH-SOUTH) COOPERATIVE GENERAL COMPANY), Central District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; China; Russia; Poland; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
137. KOREA TAESONG TRADING COMPANY, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
138. KOREA TANGUN TRADING CORPORATION (a.k.a. KOREA KURYONGGANG TRADING CORPORATION; a.k.a. RYUNG SENG TRADING CORPORATION; a.k.a. RYUNGSENG TRADING CORPORATION; a.k.a. RYUNGSONG TRADING CORPORATION), Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD] [DPRK2].
139. KOREA UNGUM CORPORATION (a.k.a. KOREA UNGUM COMPANY), Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations,, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
140. KOREA UNITED DEVELOPMENT BANK, Pyongyang, Korea, North; SWIFT/BIC KUDBKPPY; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
141. KOREA UNPHA SHIPPING & TRADING (a.k.a. KOREA UNPHA SHIPPING AND TRADING), Puksong-dong, Pyongchon-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 6005935 [DPRK4].
142. KOREA YUJONG SHIPPING CO LTD, Puksong 2-dong, Pyongchon-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5434358 [DPRK4].
143. KOREA ZINC INDUSTRIAL GROUP (a.k.a. KOREA ZINC INDUSTRY GENERAL CORPORATION; a.k.a. KOREA ZINC INDUSTRY GROUP; a.k.a. NORTH KOREAN ZINC INDUSTRY GROUP), Korea, North; Dalian, China; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
144. KOREA ZUZAGBONG MARITIME LTD, Kinmaul-dong, Moranbong-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 1991835 [DPRK3].
145. KOREAN BUYON SHIPPING CO. LTD. (a.k.a. KOREA BUYON SHIPPING CO; a.k.a. KOREAN BUYON SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED), Wonsan, Kangwon-do, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 5057119 [DPRK3].
146. KOREAN COMMITTEE FOR SPACE TECHNOLOGY (a.k.a. COMMITTEE FOR SPACE TECHNOLOGY; a.k.a. DEPARTMENT OF SPACE TECHNOLOGY OF NORTH KOREA; a.k.a. DPRK COMMITTEE FOR SPACE TECHNOLOGY; a.k.a. KCST), Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
147. KOREAN PEOPLE'S ARMY, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
148. KOREAN POLISH SHPG CO LTD, Kinmaul-dong, Moranbong-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 1267131 [DPRK3].
149. KOREAN WORKERS PARTY, PROPAGANDA AND AGITATION DEPARTMENT (a.k.a. PROPAGANDA AND AGITATION DEPARTMENT; a.k.a. PROPAGANDA AND AGITATION DEPARTMENT, WORKERS PARTY OF KOREA), Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
150. KORYO BANK, Koryo Bank Building, Pulgun Street, Pyongyang, Korea, North; SWIFT/BIC KORBKPPY; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; all offices worldwide [DPRK3].
151. KORYO COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., Pyongyang, Korea, North; Beijing, China; Shenyang, China; SWIFT/BIC KCBKKPP1; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK4].
152. KORYO CREDIT DEVELOPMENT BANK (a.k.a. DAESONG CREDIT DEVELOPMENT BANK; a.k.a. KORYO GLOBAL CREDIT BANK; a.k.a. KORYO GLOBAL TRUST BANK), Yanggakdo International Hotel, RYUS, Pyongyang, Korea, North; SWIFT/BIC KGCBKPPY; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; all offices worldwide [DPRK3].
153. KOTI CORP, Panama City, Panama; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5982254 [DPRK4].
154. KOTI Panama flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9417115 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOTI CORP).
155. KU BONG RYONG Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8983404 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA KUMBYOL TRADING COMPANY).
156. KUM GANG 3 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8966535 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA UNPHA SHIPPING & TRADING).
157. KUM SONG 3 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8661850 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: DAWN MARINE MANAGEMENT CO LTD).
158. KUM SONG 5 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8661719 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: DAWN MARINE MANAGEMENT CO LTD).
159. KUM SONG 7 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8739396 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: DAWN MARINE MANAGEMENT CO LTD).
160. KUM UN SAN 3 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8705539 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: DAWN MARINE MANAGEMENT CO LTD).
161. KUM UN SAN Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8720436 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA KUMUNSAN SHIPPING CO).
162. KUMGANG BANK, Kumgang Bank Building, Jungsong-don, Pyongyang, Korea, North; SWIFT/BIC KMBKKPPY; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; all offices worldwide [DPRK3].
163. LEADER (HONG KONG) INTERNATIONAL TRADING LIMITED (a.k.a. LEADER INTERNATIONAL TRADING LIMITED), Room 1610 Nan Fung Tower, 173 Des Voeux Road, Hong Kong; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
165. MANSUDAE OVERSEAS PROJECT GROUP OF COMPANIES (a.k.a. MANSUDAE ART STUDIO), Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
166. MANSUDAE OVERSEAS PROJECTS ARCHITECTURAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES (PTY) LIMITED, Namibia; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Registration ID 2001/044 (Namibia) [DPRK3] (Linked To: MANSUDAE OVERSEAS PROJECT GROUP OF COMPANIES).
167. MARITIME ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA (a.k.a. MARITIME ADMINISTRATION BUREAU), Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
168. MI RIM 2 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9361407 (vessel) [DPRK3] (Linked To: MIRIM SHIPPING CO LTD).
169. MI RIM Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8713471 (vessel) [DPRK3] (Linked To: MIRIM SHIPPING CO LTD).
170. MILITARY SECURITY COMMAND (a.k.a. KOREAN PEOPLE'S ARMY SECURITY BUREAU; a.k.a. MILITARY SECURITY BUREAU), Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
171. MINGZHENG INTERNATIONAL TRADING LIMITED, Flat/RM A30 9/F, Silvercorp International Tower, 707-713 Nathan Road, Kowloon, Mong Kok, Hong Kong; 224-4 Shifa Da Lu, RM 1305, Heping District, Shenyang City, Liaoning Province, China; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD] (Linked To: FOREIGN TRADE BANK OF THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA; Linked To: SUN, Wei).
172. MINISTRY OF ATOMIC ENERGY INDUSTRY, Haeun 2-Dong, Pyongchon District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
173. MINISTRY OF CRUDE OIL INDUSTRY (a.k.a. CRUDE OIL INDUSTRY MINISTRY; a.k.a. GENERAL BUREAU OF PETROLEUM INDUSTRY; a.k.a. MINISTRY OF CRUDE OIL), Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
174. MINISTRY OF LABOR, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
175. MINISTRY OF LAND AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA (a.k.a. MINISTRY OF LAND AND MARINE TRANSPORT), Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
176. MINISTRY OF PEOPLE'S ARMED FORCES, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
177. MINISTRY OF PEOPLE'S SECURITY (a.k.a. MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SECURITY; a.k.a. “MPS”), Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
178. MINISTRY OF PEOPLE'S SECURITY CORRECTIONAL BUREAU (a.k.a. MINISTRY OF PEOPLE'S SECURITY CORRECTIONAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU; a.k.a. MINISTRY OF PEOPLE'S SECURITY PRISON BUREAU), Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
179. MINISTRY OF STATE SECURITY (a.k.a. STATE SECURITY DEPARTMENT), Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
180. MINISTRY OF STATE SECURITY PRISONS BUREAU (a.k.a. MINISTRY OF STATE SECURITY FARM BUREAU; a.k.a. MINISTRY OF STATE SECURITY FARM GUIDANCE BUREAU; a.k.a. MINISTRY OF STATE SECURITY FARMING BUREAU; a.k.a. STATE SECURITY DEPARTMENT PRISONS BUREAU), Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
181. MIRIM SHIPPING CO LTD, Tonghung-dong, Chung-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 5647684 [DPRK3].
182. MU DU BONG General Cargo Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8328197 (vessel) [DPRK].
183. MUNITIONS INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT (a.k.a. MILITARY SUPPLIES INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT), Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
184. MYOHYANG SHIPPING CO, Kumsong 3-dong, Mangyongdae-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5988369 [DPRK4].
185. NAM SAN 8 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8122347 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: HAPJANGGANG SHIPPING CORP).
186. NAMCHONGANG TRADING CORPORATION (a.k.a. KOREA NAMHUNG TRADING CORPORATION; a.k.a. KOREA TAERYONGGANG TRADING CORPORATION; a.k.a. NAM CHON GANG CORPORATION; a.k.a. NAMCHONGANG TRADING; a.k.a. NAMHUNG; a.k.a. NOMCHONGANG TRADING CO.; a.k.a. “NCG”), Pyongyang, Korea, North; Chilgol, Mangyongdae District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
187. NAMGANG CONSTRUCTION, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
188. NATIONAL AEROSPACE DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION (a.k.a. “NADA”), Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
189. NATIONAL DEFENSE COMMISSION, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK2].
190. NEPTUN Russia flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8404991 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: GUDZON SHIPPING CO LLC).
191. NORTH EAST ASIA BANK, Haebangsan-dong, Central District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; SWIFT/BIC NEABKPPY; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; all offices worldwide [DPRK3].
192. O UN CHONG NYON HO General Cargo Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8330815 (vessel) [DPRK].
193. OCEAN BUNKERING JV CO, Otan-dong, Chung-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 4199470 [DPRK3].
194. OCEAN MARITIME MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED (a.k.a. EAST SEA SHIPPING COMPANY; a.k.a. HAEYANG CREW MANAGEMENT COMPANY; a.k.a. KOREA MIRAE SHIPPING CO. LTD.),
195. OFFICE 39 (a.k.a. BUREAU 39; a.k.a. CENTRAL COMMITTEE BUREAU 39; a.k.a. DIVISION 39; a.k.a. OFFICE #39; a.k.a. OFFICE NO. 39; a.k.a. “THIRD FLOOR”), Second KWP Government Building (Korean—Ch′o′ngsa), Chungso′ng, Urban Town (Korean—Dong), Chung Ward, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Chung-Guyok (Central District), Sosong Street, Kyongrim-Dong, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Changgwang Street, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK].
196. ORGANIZATION AND GUIDANCE DEPARTMENT, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK2].
197. ORIENTAL TREASURE 9,038DWT Comoros flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9115028 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: HONGXIANG MARINE HONG KONG LTD).
198. ORION STAR; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9333589 (vessel) [DPRK] (Linked To: OCEAN MARITIME MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED).
199. P-532; Aircraft Manufacture Date 1974; Aircraft Model AN24-RV; Aircraft Operator Air Koryo; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (aircraft) [DPRK3].
200. P-533; Aircraft Manufacture Date 1974; Aircraft Model AN24-RV; Aircraft Operator Air Koryo; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (aircraft) [DPRK3].
201. P-537; Aircraft Manufacture Date 1966; Aircraft Model AN24-B; Aircraft Operator Air Koryo; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (aircraft) [DPRK3].
202. P-552; Aircraft Manufacture Date 1976; Aircraft Model T154-B; Aircraft Operator Air Koryo; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (aircraft) [DPRK3].
203. P-561; Aircraft Manufacture Date 1983; Aircraft Model T154-B; Aircraft Operator Air Koryo; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (aircraft) [DPRK3].
204. P-632; Aircraft Manufacture Date 1994; Aircraft Model T204-300; Aircraft Operator Air Koryo; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (aircraft) [DPRK3].
205. P-633; Aircraft Manufacture Date 2009; Aircraft Model T204-100; Aircraft Operator Air Koryo; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (aircraft) [DPRK3].
206. P-671; Aircraft Manufacture Date 2012; Aircraft Model A148-100; Aircraft Operator Air Koryo; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (aircraft) [DPRK3].
207. P-672; Aircraft Manufacture Date 2015; Aircraft Model A148-100; Aircraft Operator Air Koryo; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (aircraft) [DPRK3].
208. P-813; Aircraft Manufacture Date 1983; Aircraft Model T134-B; Aircraft Operator Air Koryo; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (aircraft) [DPRK3].
209. P-835; Aircraft Manufacture Date 1969; Aircraft Model IL18-D; Aircraft Operator Air Koryo; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (aircraft) [DPRK3].
210. P-881; Aircraft Manufacture Date 1986; Aircraft Model IL62-M; Aircraft Operator Air Koryo; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (aircraft) [DPRK3].
211. P-885; Aircraft Manufacture Date 1979; Aircraft Model IL62-M; Aircraft Operator Air Koryo; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (aircraft) [DPRK3].
212. P-912; Aircraft Manufacture Date 1990; Aircraft Model IL76-TD; Aircraft Operator Air Koryo; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (aircraft) [DPRK3].
213. P-913; Aircraft Manufacture Date 1990; Aircraft Model IL76-TD; Aircraft Operator Air Koryo; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (aircraft) [DPRK3].
214. P-914; Aircraft Manufacture Date 1990; Aircraft Model IL76-TD; Aircraft Operator Air Koryo; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 (aircraft) [DPRK3].
215. PAEK MA Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9066978 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: PAEKMA SHIPPING CO; Linked To: FIRST OIL JV CO LTD).
216. PAEKMA SHIPPING CO, Care of First Oil JV Co Ltd, Jongbaek 1-dong, Rakrang-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5999479 [DPRK4].
217. PAEKSOL TRADING CORPORATION (a.k.a. BAEKSOL TRADING; a.k.a. BAEKSUL TRADING; a.k.a. KOREA PAEK SOL TRADING; a.k.a. PAEK SOL TRADING CORPORATION; a.k.a. PAEKSO'L CORPORATION; a.k.a. PAEKSO'L TRADING CORPORATION), Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
218. PARTIZAN Russia flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations,, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9113020 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: GUDZON SHIPPING CO LLC).
219. PATRIOT Russia flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations,, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9003550 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: PRIMORYE MARITIME LOGISTICS CO LTD; Linked To: GUDZON SHIPPING CO LLC).
220. PHO THAE General Cargo Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 7632955 (vessel) [DPRK].
221. PHYONGCHON SHIPPING & MARINE (a.k.a. PHYONGCHON SHIPPING AND MARINE), Otan-dong, Chung-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5878561 [DPRK4].
222. PI RUY GANG General Cargo Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8829593 (vessel) [DPRK].
223. PO CHON Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8848276 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: POCHON SHIPPING & MANAGEMENT).
224. PO THONG GANG General Cargo Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8829555 (vessel) [DPRK].
225. POCHON SHIPPING & MANAGEMENT (a.k.a. POCHON SHIPPING AND MANAGEMENT), Sonnae-dong, Mangyongdae-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5990271 [DPRK4].
226. PRIMORYE MARITIME LOGISTICS CO LTD (a.k.a. “PML CO LTD”), 01 ul Tigorovaya 20A, Vladivostok, Primorskiy kray 690091, Russia; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations,, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5993381 [DPRK4].
227. PROFINET PTE. LTD. (Cyrillic: ООО ПРОФИНЕТ) (a.k.a. OBSHCHESTVO S OGRANICHENNOI OTVETSTVENNOSTYU PROFINET; a.k.a. PROFINET AGENCY; a.k.a. PROFINET, OOO), 46, ul. Malinovskogo, Nakhodka, Primorski Kr. 692919, Russia; office 2, 30, Pogranichnaya Street, Nakhodka, Primorskiy Region 692922, Russia; Pogranichnaya str. 30-2, Nakhodka 692922, Russia; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations,, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK4].
228. PRO-GAIN GROUP CORPORATION, 8th Floor, Number 466, Section 2, Neihu Road, Taipei, Taiwan; Le Sanalele Complex, Ground Floor, Vaea Street, Saleufi, Apia, Samoa; Taiwan; Samoa; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3] (Linked To: TSANG, Yung Yuan).
229. PU HUNG 1 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8703933 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA RUNGRADO SHIPPING CO).
230. PYONGJIN SHIP MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, Ryukkyo 1-dong, Pyongchon-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; 102 Ryuggyo 1-dong, Pyongchon District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Identification Number IMO 5817790 [DPRK].
231. QINGDAO CONSTRUCTION (NAMIBIA) CC, ERF 338, Platinum Street, Prosperita, Windhoek, Namibia; P.O. Box 26774, Windhoek, Namibia; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Registration ID 2008/0598 (Namibia) [DPRK3] (Linked To: MANSUDAE OVERSEAS PROJECTS ARCHITECTURAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES (PTY) LIMITED; Linked To: MANSUDAE OVERSEAS PROJECT GROUP OF COMPANIES).
232. RA NAM 2 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8625545 (vessel) [DPRK3] (Linked To: KOREA SAMILPO SHIPPING CO).
233. RA NAM 3 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9314650 (vessel) [DPRK3] (Linked To: KOREA SAMILPO SHIPPING CO).
234. RAK RANG Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 7506118 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA DAEBONG SHIPPING CO).
235. RAK WON 2 General Cargo Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8819017 (vessel) [DPRK].
236. RASON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK, Rason, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; all offices worldwide [DPRK3].
237. RECONNAISSANCE GENERAL BUREAU (a.k.a. CHONGCH′AL CH′ONGGUK; a.k.a. KPA UNIT 586; a.k.a. “RGB”), Hyongjesan-Guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Nungrado, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK] [DPRK2].
238. RUNG RA 1 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8713457 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA RUNGRADO RYONGAK TRADING CO).
239. RUNG RA 2 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9020534 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA RUNGRADO RYONGAK TRADING CO).
240. RUNG RA DO Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8989795 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA RUNGRADO SHIPPING CO).
241. RYE SONG GANG 1 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 7389704 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA KUMBYOL TRADING COMPANY).
242. RYO MYONG Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8987333 (vessel) [DPRK3] (Linked To: KOREAN POLISH SHPG CO LTD).
243. RYONG GANG 2 General Cargo Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 7640378 (vessel) [DPRK].
244. RYONG GUN BONG General Cargo Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification 8606173 (vessel) [DPRK].
245. RYUGYONG COMMERCIAL BANK, Korea, North; Beijing, China; Dandong, China; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK4].
246. SAM JONG 1 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8405311 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA SAMJONG SHIPPING CO).
247. SAM JONG 2 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 7408873 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA SAMJONG SHIPPING CO).
248. SAM MA 2 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8106496 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA SAMMA SHPG CO).
249. SECOND ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES (a.k.a. 2ND ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES; a.k.a. ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES; a.k.a. CHAYON KWAHAK-WON; a.k.a. CHE 2 CHAYON KWAHAK-WON; a.k.a. KUKPANG KWAHAK-WON; a.k.a. NATIONAL DEFENSE ACADEMY; a.k.a. SANSRI; a.k.a. SECOND ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE), Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
250. SECOND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, Kangdong, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
251. SENAT SHIPPING LIMITED (a.k.a. SENAT SHIPPING & TRADING PTE LTD; a.k.a. SENAT SHIPPING AGENCY LTD; a.k.a. SENAT SHIPPING AND TRADING LTD; a.k.a. SENAT SHIPPING AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED), 36-02 A, Suntec Tower, 9, Temasek Boulevard, Singapore 038989, Singapore; 9 Temasek Boulevard, 36-02A, Singapore 038989, Singapore; Panama City, Panama; PO Box 957, Offshore Incorporations Centre Road Town, Tortola, Virgin Islands, British; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Identification Number IMO 5179245; alt. Identification Number IMO 5405737 [DPRK].
252. SEVASTOPOL Russia flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations,, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9235127 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: GUDZON SHIPPING CO LLC).
253. SHANGHAI DONGFENG SHPG CO LTD, Room 601, 433, Chifeng Lu, Hongkou Qu, Shanghai 200083, China; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5721069 [DPRK4].
255. SINGWANG ECONOMICS AND TRADING GENERAL CORPORATION, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
256. SINSMS PTE. LTD. (a.k.a. SUN MOON STAR (SINGAPORE) LTD.), 24 Mohamed Sultan Road, Singapore 239012, Singapore; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations,, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Registration Number 201318227N (Singapore) [DPRK4].
257. SO BAEK SAN Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8658267 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA KUMBYOL TRADING COMPANY).
258. SONG WON Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8613360 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: SONGWON SHIPPING & MANAGEMENT).
259. SONGI TRADING COMPANY, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
260. SONGWON SHIPPING & MANAGEMENT (a.k.a. SONGWON SHIPPING AND MANAGEMENT), Somun-dong, Chung-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5990268 [DPRK4].
261. SOUTH HILL 2 Sierra Leone flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8412467 (vessel) [DPRK] (Linked To: OCEAN MARITIME MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED).
262. SOUTH HILL 5 Palau flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9138680 (vessel) [DPRK] (Linked To: OCEAN MARITIME MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED).
263. STATE AFFAIRS COMMISSION, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
264. STATE PLANNING COMMISSION, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
265. STRATEGIC ROCKET FORCE OF THE KOREAN PEOPLE'S ARMY (a.k.a. STRATEGIC ROCKET FORCE; a.k.a. THE STRATEGIC ROCKET FORCE COMMAND OF KPA; a.k.a. “STRATEGIC FORCE”; a.k.a. “STRATEGIC FORCES”), Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
266. TAE DONG GANG General Cargo Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 7738656 (vessel) [DPRK].
267. TANCHON COMMERCIAL BANK (f.k.a. CHANGGWANG CREDIT BANK; f.k.a. KOREA CHANGGWANG CREDIT BANK), Saemul 1-Dong Pyongchon District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
268. THAE PYONG SAN Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9009085 (vessel) [DPRK3] (Linked To: THAEPHYONGSAN SHIPPING CO LTD).
269. THAEPHYONGSAN SHIPPING CO LTD, Room 402, 90, Sochon-dong, Sosong-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 5878575 [DPRK3].
270. TONG HUNG 1 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8661575 (vessel) [DPRK3] (Linked To: KOREA ZUZAGBONG MARITIME LTD).
271. TONG HUNG 5 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8151415 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: TONGHUNG SHIPPING & TRADING CO).
272. TONGHUNG SHIPPING & TRADING CO (a.k.a. TONGHUNG SHIPPING AND TRADING CO), Kinmaul-dong, Moranbong-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 1991835 [DPRK4].
273. TOSONG TECHNOLOGY TRADING CORPORATION, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
274. TRANS MERITS CO. LTD., 1F, No. 49, Lane 280, Kuang Fu S. Road, Taipei, Taiwan; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Business Registration Document #16316976 (Taiwan) [NPWMD].
275. TRANS MULTI MECHANICS CO. LTD. (a.k.a. FENG SHENG CO., LTD.), 19, Chin Ho Lane, Chung Cheng Rd., Taya District, Taichung City, Taiwan; No 19, Jinhe Lane, Zhongzheng Road, Daya District, Taichung City, Taiwan; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [NPWMD].
276. TRANSATLANTIC PARTNERS PTE. LTD., 10 Anson Road, #29-05A, International Plaza 079903, Singapore; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3].
277. UL JI BONG 6 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9114555 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: CK INTERNATIONAL LTD).
278. UN RYUL Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8514409 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA MARINE & INDUSTRIAL TRDG).
279. VELMUR MANAGEMENT PTE LTD, 2 Marina Blvd., No. 66-08, The Sail at Marina Bay 018987, Singapore; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3] (Linked To: TRANSATLANTIC PARTNERS PTE. LTD.).
280. VICTORY 2 Mongolia flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8312227 (vessel) [DPRK3] (Linked To: KOREAN BUYON SHIPPING CO. LTD.).
281. VOLASYS SILVER STAR, 41 Ulitsa Klary Tsetskin, Vladivostok, Russia; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK3] [DPRK4].
282. WEIHAI WORLD-SHIPPING FREIGHT, 419-201, Tongyi Lu, Huancui Qu, Weihai, Shandong 264200, China; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5905801 [DPRK4].
283. WON SAN 2 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9159787 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: YUSONG SHIPPING CO).
284. WOORY STAR Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8408595 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: PHYONGCHON SHIPPING & MARINE).
285. WORKERS' PARTY OF KOREA CENTRAL MILITARY COMMISSION, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210 [DPRK2].
286. XIN GUANG HAI 7,067DWT; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9004700 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: WEIHAI WORLD-SHIPPING FREIGHT).
288. YANG GAK DO Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 6401828 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA RUNGRADO SHIPPING CO).
289. YONGJIN SHIP MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, Tonghung-dong, Chung-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Tonghung-dong, Central District, Korea, North; Email Address
290. YU JONG 2 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8604917 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA YUJONG SHIPPING CO LTD).
291. YU PHYONG 5 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8605026 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA MYONGDOK SHIPPING CO).
292. YU SON Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8691702 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: MYOHYANG SHIPPING CO).
293. YU SONG 12 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9096791 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: YUSONG SHIPPING CO).
294. YU SONG 7 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8400854 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: YUSONG SHIPPING CO).
295. YUK TUNG ENERGY PTE LTD, 17-22, UOB Plaza 2, Raffles Place 048624, Singapore; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Company Number IMO 5987860 [DPRK4].
296. YUK TUNG; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9030591 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: YUK TUNG ENERGY PTE LTD).
297. YUSONG SHIPPING CO, Uiam-dong, Taedonggang-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Nationality of Registration Korea, North; Company Number 5146578 [DPRK4].
298. ZA RYOK 2 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8898738 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: YUSONG SHIPPING CO).
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, November 20, 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, November 20, 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 Special
The meeting will be held Wednesday, November 21, 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, November 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 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.
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, November 14, 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, November 14, 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.
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, November 20, 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, November 20, 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 to participate must be made with Gilbert Martinez. For more information please contact Gilbert Martinez at 1-888-912-1227 or 214-413-6523, or write TAP Office 3651 S. IH-35, STOP 1005 AUSC, Austin, TX 78741, or post comments to the website:
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 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, November 29, 2018.
Fred Smith at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-3087.
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, November 29, 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 Fred Smith at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-3087, 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 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, November 13, 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, November 13, 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.
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 customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, November 8, 2018.
Gregory Giles at 1-888-912-1227 or 240-613-6478.
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, November 8, 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.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on this request.
Comments should be received on or before November 13, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Quintana by emailing
Following the most expansive tax law changes in 30 years, Treasury asked the IRS to look at ways to improve the 1040 filing experience. In response, the IRS took a strategic look at the family of 1040 forms with a goal of simplifying the experience for taxpayers and our partners in the tax industry. The 2018 draft Form 1040 replaces the current Form 1040 as well as the Form 1040A and the Form 1040EZ. The 2018 draft Form 1040 uses a “building block” approach, which can be supplemented with additional schedules as needed. The 2018 draft Form 1040 goes from the current 79 lines to somewhere around 23 lines. Taxpayers with straightforward
Information for the standard deduction was moved below the name entry spaces.
The checkbox for “Full-year health care coverage” was moved to the first page.
The “Exemptions” section was renamed “Dependents.” Taxpayers will continue to list individuals for whom they claim tax benefits associated with an exemption. Only two dependents can be listed on the form itself. Just as in 2017, dependents who cannot be listed on the form must be identified in an attached statement.
The entry spaces for subtotaling exemptions were removed; a new checkbox was added for dependents who qualify for the credit for other dependents.
The signature block was moved. An entry space was added for the spouse's identity protection PIN in lieu of the taxpayer's daytime phone number. The “Paid Preparers” section was shortened and a third-party designee box was added. Taxpayers with third-party designees or a foreign address must attach Schedule 6.
Line 4 (IRAs, pensions and annuities) combined 2017 Form 1040, lines 15 and 16.
Line 6 is a subtotal from Schedule 1, which includes less common types of income, as well as any adjustments to income.
Line 9 was added for the qualified business income deduction under section 199A.
Line 11 is the chapter 1 tax. Taxpayers with less common situations will enter an amount from Schedule 2, which generally includes lines 44 through 47 of the 2017 Form 1040.
Line 12 is the child tax credit and/or credit for other dependents. Taxpayers with other nonrefundable credits, will enter a subtotal from Schedule 3, which generally includes lines 48 through 55 of the 2017 Form 1040.
Line 14 is a subtotal from Schedule 4, which generally includes the items from the “Other Taxes” section of the 2017 Form 1040.
Line 17 is refundable credits and some payments. The earned income credit, additional child tax credit, and American opportunity tax credit remain on the form. Taxpayers with other credits and payments will enter an amount from Schedule 5, which generally includes items from the “Payments” section of the 2017 Form 1040.
Treasury's Office of Tax Analysis projects that roughly 25% of projected 2018 individual income tax filers would be able to file the new form without any attachments (meaning any of the six new schedules or any existing forms or schedules that are retained). For context, in Tax Year 2015, 16% of 1040 series returns filed were Form 1040-EZ.
An analysis of the impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 on the burden faced by individual taxpayers in complying with the Federal tax law indicates that the overall impact of the law on individuals will lower taxpayer burden. Currently, the average time to complete a tax year 2018 individual tax return is estimated to decrease by 9% and the average out-of-pocket costs are estimated to decrease 2%.
The expected impact of TCJA provisions by statutory and discretionary change are provided below:
The increase in the standard deduction and the limitation on the Schedule A tax deduction, taken together, are the most substantial changes introduced in the TCJA. These changes are expected to decrease the number of Schedule A filers from 46 million to 20 million. The 26 million drop in Schedule A filings and the elimination of certain Schedule A line items is expected to lead to decrease of 241,000,000 hours and a decrease of $2,948,000,000 in out-of-pocket costs.
The change in thresholds on the Form 6251 for alternative minimum tax is expected to lead to a significant decrease in Form 6251 filings, from 10 million to 1 million or less. This change is expected to lead to a decrease of 13,000,000 hours and a decrease of $557,000,000 in out-of-pocket costs.
The new Sec 199A Deduction for qualified business income is expected to increase burden for many filers who report sole proprietor and passthrough income. The deduction is also expected to increase the number of filers with sole proprietors and passthrough income which should increase burden. This change is expected to lead to an increase of 52,000,000 hours and an increase of $1,303,000,000.
Additional changes, such as the adjustment of the child tax credit phaseout threshold and credit amount, the introduction of the older dependent credit, and the elimination of the domestic production credit are expected to have a net estimated impact of an increase of 2,000,000 hours and an increase of $64,000,000 of out-of-pocket costs.
Overall, the decreases in burden from the change in Schedule A and Form 6251 filings are expected to more than offset the increase burden from the Sec 199A Deduction. Total statutory changes are expected decrease time burden by 200,000,000 and are expected to decrease out-of-pocket costs by $2,138,000,000.
The impact of the Form 1040 redesign on the approximately 5% of individual taxpayers who complete their taxes by hand without using a paid preparer or software is not expected to have a material impact on overall filing burden. The current expectation is that some taxpayers who prepare unassisted will have marginally lower burden while others will have marginally higher burden. For example, taxpayers who previously filed a Form 1040EZ may experience slightly more burden because they need to evaluate more information than before while a segment of taxpayers who previously filed the Form 1040 and 1040A may experience slightly less burden because they need to evaluate less information than before. In addition, some filers are expected to experience a reduction in burden from the separation of the components of the Form 1040 onto the new set of schedules while some are not. Overall, the minor increases and decreases that this population experiences are expected to mostly offset and are
44 U.S.C. 3501
Departmental Offices, Treasury.
Notice.
For the period beginning October 1, 2018, and ending on December 31, 2018, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Bond interest rate is 2.08 per centum per annum.
Rates are applicable October 1, 2018 to December 31, 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.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule and 12-month finding.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list the Atlantic pigtoe (
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before December 10, 2018. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office, 551F Pylon Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606; telephone 919-856-4520; or facsimile 919-856-4556. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to designate critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Act defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed if such areas are essential to the conservation of the species. In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we prepared an analysis of the economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation.
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. Because we will consider all comments and information we receive during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from this proposal. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The Atlantic pigtoe's biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current status, range, distribution, and population size of this species, including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
(5) Information on activities that are necessary and advisable for the conservation of the Atlantic pigtoe to include in a 4(d) rule for the species. The Service is proposing such measures that are necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species, and will evaluate ideas provided by the public in considering the prohibitions we should include in the 4(d) rule.
(6) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act including whether there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be prudent.
(7) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Atlantic pigtoe habitat;
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing and that contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the species and why.
(8) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(9) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final designation, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that may be impacted.
(10) Information on the extent to which the description of probable economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable estimate of the likely economic impacts and the description of the environmental impacts in the draft environmental assessment is complete and accurate.
(11) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(12) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include. All comments submitted electronically via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the listing action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. Requests for public hearings must be received by the date specified in
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for the Atlantic pigtoe. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the species. The SSA report underwent independent peer review by scientists with expertise in mussel
We identified the Atlantic pigtoe as a Category 2 candidate species in our November 21, 1991, Animal Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species (56 FR 58804). Category 2 candidates were defined as taxa for which we had information that listing was possibly appropriate, but conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats were not available to support a proposed rule. In the February 28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596), we discontinued the designation of species as Category 2 candidates; therefore, the Atlantic pigtoe was no longer a candidate species.
On April 20, 2010, we were petitioned to list 404 aquatic species in the southeastern United States, including Atlantic pigtoe. In response to the petition, we completed a partial 90-day finding on September 27, 2011 (76 FR 59836), in which we announced our finding that the petition contained substantial information that listing may be warranted for numerous species, including the pigtoe. On June 17, 2014, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a complaint against the Service for failure to complete a 12-month finding for the Atlantic pigtoe in accordance with statutory deadlines. On September 22, 2014, the Service and the CBD filed stipulated settlements in the District of Columbia, agreeing that the Service would submit to the
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the Atlantic pigtoe is presented in the SSA report (Service 2017; available at
The Atlantic pigtoe is a small freshwater mussel with a sub-rhomboidal shaped shell. Although larger specimens exist, the Atlantic pigtoe rarely exceeds 50 millimeters (mm) (2 inches (in)) in length. The known historical range of the Atlantic pigtoe included 12 populations in Atlantic river basins from Virginia to Georgia. However, surveys conducted from 2005 to 2015 indicate that the currently occupied range of the Atlantic pigtoe consists of seven populations in Virginia and North Carolina. The Atlantic pigtoe is dependent on clean, moderate-flowing water with high dissolved oxygen content in creek and riverine environments. Historically, the most abundant populations existed in creeks and rivers with excellent water quality, and where stream flows were sufficient to maintain clean, silt-free substrates. It is associated with gravel and coarse sand substrates at the downstream edge of riffles (shallow water with rapid currents running over gravel or rocks), and less commonly occurs in cobble, silt, or sand detritus mixtures. Because this species prefers more pristine conditions, it typically occurs in headwaters of rural watersheds.
The Atlantic pigtoe is presumed to be an omnivore. Adults primarily filter feed on a wide variety of microscopic particulate matter suspended in the water column, including phytoplankton, zooplankton, bacteria, detritus, and dissolved organic matter, although juveniles tend to pedal feed in the sediment (Alderman and Alderman 2014, p. 9).
Like most freshwater mussels, the Atlantic pigtoe has a unique life cycle that relies on fish hosts for successful reproduction. Following release from the female mussel, sticky packets of floating glochidia (larvae) attach to the gills and scales of host minnows. The larvae stay attached to the host fish until they complete metamorphosis, when they release from the fish and fall to the substrate.
The Atlantic pigtoe has been documented in all major river basins in the Atlantic coastal drainages from the James River Basin in Virginia south to the Altamaha River Basin in Georgia, and from the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains to the Coastal Plain. However, abundance and distribution of the species has declined, with the species currently occupying approximately 40% of its historical range. Most of the remaining populations are small and fragmented, only occupying a fraction of reaches that were historically occupied. Current surveys found Atlantic pigtoes remain in seven populations in Virginia and North Carolina, however only three populations have multiple documented occurrences within the past 10 years. This decrease in abundance and distribution has resulted in largely isolated contemporary populations. Evidence suggests that the range reduction of the species corresponds to habitat degradation resulting from the cumulative impacts of land use change and associated watershed-level effects on water quality, water quantity, habitat connectivity, and instream habitat suitability.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” and a threatened species as a species that is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the expected response by the species, and the effects of the threats—in light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats—on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species—such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future.
In our determination, we correlate the threats acting on the species to the factors in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. We summarize the status assessment for Atlantic pigtoe below.
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive biological status review for the Atlantic pigtoe, including an assessment of the potential stressors to the species. It does not represent a decision by the Service on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. It does, however, provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decision, which involves the further application of standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies. The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report.
To assess Atlantic pigtoe viability, we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, representation, and redundancy (together, “the three Rs,” (3Rs)) (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency refers to the ability of a species to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years); representation refers to the ability of the species to adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example, climate changes); and redundancy refers to the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, hurricanes). In general, the more redundant and resilient a species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we used the 3Rs to evaluate individual mussel life-history needs. During the next stage, we assessed the historical and current condition of species' demographics and habitat characteristics, including explaining how the species arrived at its current condition. In the final stage of the SSA, we made predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. This process used the best available information to characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time. We used this information to inform our regulatory decision in this finding.
To evaluate the current and future viability of the Atlantic pigtoe, we assessed a range of conditions to allow us to consider the species' resiliency, representation, and redundancy. Populations were delineated using the 12 river basins that Atlantic pigtoe mussels historically occupied: the James, Chowan, Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, Cape Fear, Pee Dee, Catawba, Edisto, Savannah, Ogeechee, and Altamaha River basins. Because the river basin level is at a very coarse scale, populations were further delineated using management units (MUs). The MUs were defined as one or more U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) 10 watersheds that species experts identified as the most appropriate unit for assessing population-level resiliency. To provide context for the current condition of the species using the 3Rs, we considered the historic range as context for the species' resiliency, redundancy, and representation on the landscape in the past. However, in addressing the current condition of the 3Rs, only extant populations were analyzed.
To assess resiliency, we qualitatively analyzed data related to three population factors (MU occupancy, recruitment, and abundance) and four habitat elements (water quality/flow, water quantity, instream substrate, and habitat connectivity). Overall population condition rankings and habitat condition rankings were determined by combining these factors and elements.
We described representation for the Atlantic pigtoe in terms of river basin variability (known from 12 historical river basins, currently extant in 7), physiographic variability (Mountains, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain), and historic latitudinal variability (Virginia south to Georgia). We assessed Atlantic pigtoe redundancy by first evaluating occupancy within each of the hydrologic units (
The historical range of the Atlantic pigtoe included 12 populations in Atlantic river basins from Virginia to Georgia. The surveys conducted from 2005 to 2015 indicate that the currently occupied range of the Atlantic pigtoe consists of 14 MUs within 7 populations in Virginia and North Carolina, in the Tar, Neuse, James, Chowan, Roanoke, Cape Fear, and Yadkin-Pee Dee River basins. The species is presumed extirpated from the southern portion of its range, including the Catawba, Edisto, Savannah, Ogeechee, and Altamaha River basins. The Atlantic pigtoe currently (defined as the observation of at least one specimen from 2005 to 2015) occupies 14 of the 81 historically occupied MUs. At the population level, the overall current condition (= resiliency) of the extant populations was estimated to be high for the Tar Population; moderate for the Neuse Population; and low for the James, Chowan, Roanoke, Cape Fear, and Yadkin-Pee Dee populations.
The Atlantic pigtoe currently has reduced adaptive potential due to limited representation (compared with historical representation) in seven river basins and three physiographic regions. The species retains 58 percent of its known river basin variability, but as discussed above distribution has been reduced in the James, Chowan, Roanoke, Cape Fear, and Yadkin-Pee Dee populations. In addition, although the species continues to maintain physiographic representation in all three regions it historically occupied, occupancy has decreased in each region. A 67 percent estimated loss has occurred in the Mountain region's watersheds, 48 percent loss in the Piedmont region's watersheds, and 76 percent loss in the Coastal Plain region's
Redundancy was estimated as the number of historically occupied MUs that remain currently occupied. The species has limited redundancy within the James, Chowan, Roanoke, and Cape Fear River populations, and only two populations (Tar and Neuse) have multiple moderate or highly resilient MUs. Overall, the species has decreased redundancy across its range due to an estimated 60 percent reduction in occupancy compared to historical levels.
Aquatic systems face a multitude of natural and anthropogenic factors that may impact the status of species within those systems (Neves
Impervious surfaces associated with development negatively affect water quality when pollutants that accumulate on impervious surfaces are washed directly into the streams during storm events. Storm water runoff affects such water quality parameters as temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and salinity, which in turn alter the water chemistry and could make habitat unsuitable for the Atlantic pigtoe. Concentrations of contaminants, including nitrogen, phosphorus, chloride, insecticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and personal care products, increase with urban development (Giddings
Urban development can also lead to increased variability in streamflow, typically increasing the amount of water entering a stream after a storm and decreasing the time it takes for the water to travel over the land before entering the stream (Giddings
A further risk of urbanization is the accompanying road development that often results in improperly constructed culverts at stream crossings. These culverts act as barriers, either if flow through the culvert varies significantly from the rest of the stream, or if the culvert ends up being perched above the stream bed so that host fish (and, therefore, the Atlantic pigtoe) cannot pass through them. This leads to loss of access to quality habitat, as well as fragmented habitat and a loss of connectivity between populations. This can limit both genetic exchange and recolonization opportunities.
All of the river basins within the range of this species are affected to some extent by development, ranging from 3 percent of the Black River subbasin in the Cape Fear River Basin to 70 percent of the Crabtree Creek subbasin in the Neuse River Basin (based on the 2011 National Land Cover Data). The Neuse River basin in North Carolina contains one-sixth of the entire State's population, indicating heavy development pressure on the watershed. As another example, the Middle James MU (in the James population) contains 159 impaired stream miles, 2 major discharges, 32 minor discharges, and over 1,300 road crossings. Similarly, the Muddy Creek MU is currently made up of 12.3 percent impervious surfaces. For complete data on all of the populations, refer to appendix C of the SSA report.
It is common practice to pump water for irrigation from adjacent streams or rivers into a reservoir pond, or to spray the stream or river water directly onto crops. If the water withdrawal is excessive or done illegally, this may cause impacts to the amount of water available to downstream sensitive areas during low flow months, resulting in dewatering of channels and stranding of mussels, leading to desiccation and death. The Cape Fear River basin has 33 reservoirs, many of them supplying water to some of the most populated areas in North Carolina, including the Triad (Greensboro and High Point),
Forestry activities often include the construction of logging roads through the riparian zone, which can directly degrade nearby stream environments. Roads can cause localized sedimentation, as well as sedimentation traveling downstream into more sensitive habitats. These effects lead to stress and mortality for the Atlantic pigtoe, as discussed in
As to droughts, even naturally occurring low flow events can cause mussels to become stressed, either because they exert significant energy to move to deeper waters or they may succumb to desiccation. Because late summer and early fall are stressful periods for the species due to low flows, droughts during this time of year can be especially harmful, resulting in increased mortality rates. Atlantic pigtoe habitat must have adequate flow to deliver oxygen, enable passive reproduction, and deliver food to filter-feeding mussels. Further, flow removes contaminants and fine sediments from interstitial spaces preventing mussel suffocation. Droughts have impacted all river basins within the range of Atlantic pigtoe, from an “abnormally dry” ranking for North Carolina and Virginia in 2001 on the Southeast Drought Monitor scale to the highest ranking of “exceptionally dry” for the entire range of the species in 2002 and 2007. In 2015, the entire Southeast ranged from “abnormally dry” to “moderate drought” or “severe drought.” These data covered the first week in September, which, as noted above, is a very sensitive time for drought to be affecting the species. The Middle Neuse tributaries of the Neuse River basin had consecutive drought years from 2005 through 2012, indicating sustained stress on the species over a long period of time.
Increases in the frequency and strength of storms events alter stream habitat. Stream habitat is altered either directly via channelization or clearing of riparian areas, or indirectly via high stream flows that reshape the channel and cause sediment erosion. The large volumes and velocity of water, combined with the extra debris and sediment entering streams following a storm, stress, displace, or kill Atlantic pigtoe and the host fish species on which they depend.
Sedentary freshwater mussels have limited ability to seek refuge from droughts and floods, and they are completely dependent on specific water temperatures to complete their physiological requirements. Changes in water temperature lead to stress, increased mortality, and also increase the likelihood of extinction.
The flathead catfish (
Hydrilla (
In addition to impacting the species individually, it is likely that several of the above summarized risk factors are acting synergistically or additively on the species. The combined impact of multiple stressors is likely more harmful than a single stressor acting alone. For example, in the Meherrin River MU, there are four stream reaches with 34 miles of impaired streams. They have low benthic-macroinvertebrate scores, low dissolved oxygen, low pH, and contain
The Service and State wildlife agencies are working with numerous partners to provide technical guidance and offering conservation tools to meet both species and habitat needs in aquatic systems in North Carolina. Land trusts are targeting key parcels for acquisition; Federal and State biologists are surveying and monitoring species occurrences; and, recently, there has been a concerted effort to ramp up captive propagation and species population restoration via augmentation, expansion, and reintroduction efforts. In 2014, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission staff and partners began a concerted effort to propagate the Atlantic pigtoe in hopes of augmenting existing populations in the Tar and Neuse River basins. In July 2015, 250 Atlantic pigtoes were stocked into Sandy Creek, a tributary of the Tar River. Annual monitoring to evaluate growth and survival is planned, and additional propagation and stocking efforts will continue in upcoming years (Service 2017, p. 59).
For the purpose of this assessment, we define viability as the ability of the species to sustain populations in the wild over time. To help address uncertainty associated with the degree and extent of potential future stressors and their impacts on the needs of the species, the 3Rs were applied using four plausible future scenarios. We devised these scenarios by eliciting expert information on the primary stressors anticipated to affect the species into the future: Habitat loss and degradation due to urbanization and the effects of climate change. The models that were used to forecast both urbanization and climate change projected out 50 years in the future. For more detailed information on these models and their projections, please see the SSA report (Service 2017, chapter 3).
For example, in scenario one, the “status quo” scenario, factors that influence current populations of the Atlantic pigtoe were assumed to remain constant over the 50-year time horizon. Climate models predict that, if emissions of greenhouse gasses continue to increase, the Southeast will experience an increase in low flow (drought) events. Likewise, this scenario assumed the “business as usual” pattern of urban growth, which predicts that urbanization will continue to increase rapidly (using simulations that point to a future in which the extent of urbanization in the Southeast is projected to increase by 101 to 192 percent). This continued growth in development means increases in impervious surfaces, increased variability in streamflow, channelization of streams or clearing of riparian areas, and other negative effects explained above under
In the SSA Report we describe results for three more scenarios that represent the full likely range of plausible future outcomes for development, possible climate changes, and the species' expected response to threats. Results for our full resiliency analysis for the future projections is summarized in Table 1 below.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Atlantic pigtoe. The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as any species “that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.”
We considered whether the Atlantic pigtoe is presently in danger of extinction and determined that proposing endangered status is not appropriate. The historical range of the Atlantic pigtoe included streams and rivers in 12 Atlantic Slope drainages from the James River Basin to the Altamaha River Basin, with the documented historical distribution in 28 MUs within those basins. Currently, the Atlantic pigtoe is presumed extirpated from 50 percent (14) of the historically occupied MUs and 5 of the drainages. Of the remaining 14 occupied MUs, 3 (21 percent) are estimated to be highly resilient and 5 (36 percent) moderately resilient, with 6 (43 percent) having low resiliency. Eight moderate to high resiliency MUs provide the ability for the species to withstand stochastic disturbance events. Scaling up from the MU to the population level, 1 of 12 former populations (the Tar population) was estimated to have high resiliency, 1 population (the Neuse population) was estimated to have moderate resiliency, 5 populations (the James, Chowan, Roanoke, Cape Fear, and Yadkin-Pee Dee populations) had low estimated resiliency, and 5 of the former 12 populations are presumed extirpated; this means that 42 percent of the species' historic range has been eliminated. Seventy-one percent of streams that remain part of the current species' range are estimated to be in low condition as defined in the SSA report. The species continues to maintain physiographic representation in all 3 regions it historically occupied, although occupancy has decreased in each region by between 48 and 76 percent. However, while threats are currently acting on the species and many of those threats are expected to continue into the future (see below), we did not find that the species is currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. With eight moderately or highly resilient MUs in three physiographic regions, the current condition of the species still provides for enough resiliency, redundancy, and representation such that it is not at risk of extinction now.
However, estimates of future resiliency, redundancy, and representation for the Atlantic pigtoe are also low. The Atlantic pigtoe faces a variety of threats from declines in water quality, loss of stream flow, riparian and instream fragmentation, and deterioration of instream habitats (Factor A). These threats, which are expected to be exacerbated by continued urbanization (Factor A) and the effects of climate change (Factor E), were central to our assessment of the future viability of the Atlantic pigtoe. Given current and future decreases in resiliency, populations will become more vulnerable to extirpation from stochastic events, in turn, resulting in concurrent losses in representation and redundancy. The range of plausible future scenarios of these Atlantic pigtoe habitat conditions and population factors suggest possible extirpation in as many as five of seven currently extant populations. Even the most optimistic model predicted that only two MUs will be in high condition in 50 years and the remaining populations are expected to be characterized by low occupancy and abundance. Under most modeled scenarios, the species is likely to lose enough resiliency, redundancy, and representation such that it is at risk of not being viable. All four scenarios presented as representative of plausible future scenarios create conditions where the Atlantic pigtoe would not have enough resiliency, redundancy, or representation to sustain populations over time. While determining the probability of each scenario was not possible with the available data, the entire risk profile that was provided by looking across the range of the four plausible scenarios showed the species is continuing to lose resiliency, redundancy, and representation throughout the range in all likely scenarios. In short, our analysis of the species' current and future conditions, as well as the conservation efforts discussed above, show that the population and habitat factors used to determine the resiliency, representation, and redundancy for the species will continue to decline over the next 50 years so that the species is likely to become in danger of extinction throughout its range within the foreseeable future. Fifty years was considered “foreseeable” in this case because it included projections from both available models while taking into consideration that Atlantic pigtoes are slow-growing and long-lived species, and, therefore, respond more slowly on a population or species level to negative impacts on the ecosystem. We can
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the Atlantic pigtoe is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout its range, we find it unnecessary to proceed to an evaluation of potentially significant portions of the range. Where the best available information allows the Services to determine a status for the species rangewide, that determination should be given conclusive weight because a rangewide determination of status more accurately reflects the species' degree of imperilment and better promotes the purposes of the statute. Under this reading, we should first consider whether listing is appropriate based on a rangewide analysis and proceed to conduct a “significant portion of its range” analysis if, and only if, a species does not qualify for listing as either endangered or threatened according to the “all” language. We note that the court in
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we propose to list the Atlantic pigtoe as threatened in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for reclassification (such as “downlisting” from endangered to threatened) or removal from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (“delisting”), and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our website (
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (
Although the Atlantic pigtoe is only proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area occupied by the species as: An area that may generally be delineated around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may require special management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those physical or biological features within an area, we focus on the specific features that support the life-history needs of the species, including but not limited to, water characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. We will determine whether unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the species by considering the life-history, status, and conservation needs of the species. This will be further informed by any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline that may have been developed for the species to provide a substantive foundation for identifying which features and specific areas are essential to the conservation of the species and, as a result, the development of the critical habitat designation. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat designation.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards under the Endangered Species Act (published in the
When we are determining which areas should be designated as critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information from the SSA report and information developed during the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species; and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist:
(1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or
(2) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species. In determining whether a designation would not be beneficial, the factors the Service may consider include but are not limited to: Whether the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the species, or whether any areas meet the definition of “critical habitat.”
There is currently no imminent threat of take attributed to collection or vandalism identified under Factor B for this species, and identification and mapping of critical habitat is not expected to initiate any such threat. In the absence of finding that the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, we next determine whether such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species. In the information provided above on threats to the species, we determined that there are habitat-based threats to the Atlantic pigtoe, so the designation of critical habitat would be beneficial to the species through the application of section 7 of the Act to actions that affect habitat as well as those that affect the species. Because we have determined that the designation of critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of threat to the species and would be beneficial, we find that designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Atlantic pigtoe.
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the Atlantic pigtoe is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to identify any area that meets the definition of “critical habitat.”
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species.
The features may also be combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass the relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic needed to support the life history of the species. In considering whether features are essential to the conservation of the species, the Service may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential for Atlantic pigtoe from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and life history. The primary habitat elements that influence resiliency of the Atlantic pigtoe include water quality, water quantity, substrate, and habitat connectivity. A full description of the needs of individuals, populations, and the species is available from the SSA report; the individuals' needs are summarized below in Table 2.
In summary, we derive the specific physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Atlantic pigtoe from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described above. Additional information can be found in the SSA Report (Service 2017) available on
(1) Suitable substrates and connected instream habitats, characterized by geomorphically stable stream channels and banks (
(2) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic flow regime (which includes the severity, frequency, duration, and seasonality of discharge over time), necessary to maintain benthic habitats where the species is found and to maintain connectivity of streams with the floodplain, allowing the exchange of nutrients and sediment for maintenance of the mussel's and fish host's habitat, food availability, spawning habitat for native fishes, and the ability for newly transformed juveniles to settle and become established in their habitats.
(3) Water and sediment quality (including, but not limited to, conductivity, hardness, turbidity, temperature, pH, ammonia, heavy metals, and chemical constituents) necessary to sustain natural physiological processes for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages.
(4) The presence and abundance of fish hosts necessary for recruitment of the Atlantic pigtoe.
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. The features essential to the conservation of the Atlantic pigtoe may require special management considerations or protections to reduce the following threats: (1) Urbanization of the landscape, including (but not limited to) land conversion for urban and commercial use, infrastructure (roads, bridges, utilities), and urban water uses (water supply reservoirs, wastewater treatment, etc.); (2) nutrient pollution from agricultural activities that impact water quantity and quality; (3) significant alteration of water quality; (4) improper forest management or silviculture activities that remove large areas of forested wetlands and riparian systems; (5) culvert and pipe installation that creates barriers to movement; (6) impacts from invasive species; (7) changes and shifts in seasonal precipitation patterns as a result of climate change; and (8) other watershed and floodplain disturbances that release sediments or nutrients into the water.
Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include, but are not limited to: Use of best management practices (BMPs) designed to reduce sedimentation, erosion, and bank side destruction; protection of riparian corridors and leaving sufficient canopy cover along banks; moderation of surface and ground water withdrawals to maintain natural flow regimes; increased use of stormwater management and reduction of stormwater flows into the systems; and reduction of other watershed and floodplain disturbances that release sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into the water.
In summary, we find that the occupied areas we are proposing to designate as critical habitat contain the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. Special management considerations or protection may be required of the Federal action agency to eliminate, or to reduce to negligible levels, the threats affecting the physical and biological features of each unit.
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) we review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered for designation as critical habitat.
The current distribution of the Atlantic pigtoe is much reduced from its historical distribution. We anticipate that recovery will require continued protection of existing populations and habitat, as well as ensure there are adequate numbers of mussels in stable populations and that these populations occur over a wide geographic area. This strategy will help to ensure that catastrophic events, such as the effects of hurricanes (
Sources of data for this proposed critical habitat include multiple databases maintained by universities and State agencies for Virginia and North Carolina, and numerous survey reports on streams throughout the species' range (see SSA report). We have also reviewed available information that pertains to the habitat requirements of this species. Sources of information on habitat requirements include studies conducted at occupied sites and published in peer-reviewed articles, agency reports, and data collected during monitoring efforts (Service 2017).
We identified stream channels that currently support populations of the Atlantic pigtoe. We defined “current” as stream channels with observations of the species from 2005 to the present. Due to the breadth and intensity of survey effort done for freshwater mussels throughout the known range of the species, it is reasonable to assume that streams with no positive surveys since 2005 should not be considered occupied for the purpose of our analysis. However, since each particular area is not surveyed every year, and these cryptic mussels have a 0.42 detection probability, only one negative survey would not be sufficient to determine that the species is not present. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that if the species had been seen within the past ten years that it could be considered currently occupied. Specific habitat areas were delineated based on Natural Heritage Element Occurrences (EOs) following NatureServe's occurrence delineation protocol for freshwater mussels (NatureServe 2018). These EOs provide habitat for Atlantic pigtoe subpopulations and are large enough to be self-sustaining over time, despite fluctuations in local conditions. The EOs contain stream reaches with interconnected waters so that host fish containing Atlantic pigtoe glochidia can move between areas, at least during certain flows or seasons.
We consider the following streams to be occupied by the species at the time of proposed listing: Craig Creek, Mill Creek, Middle James River, Nottoway River Subbasin, Meherrin River, Dan River, Aarons Creek, Upper/Middle Tar River, Sandy/Swift Creek, Fishing Creek Subbasin, Lower Tar River, Upper Neuse River Subbasin, Middle Neuse River Subbasin, New Hope Creek, Deep River Subbasin, and Little River Subbasin (see
We are not proposing to designate any areas outside the geographical area currently occupied by the species because we did not find any unoccupied areas that were essential for the conservation of the species. The protection of eight moderately or highly resilient management units across the physiographic representation of the range would sufficiently reduce the risk of extinction. Improving the resiliency of populations in the currently occupied streams will increase viability to the point that the protections of the Act are no longer necessary.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack physical or biological features necessary for Atlantic pigtoe. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation under the Act with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include more detailed information on the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation in the discussion of individual units below. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available to the public on
We are proposing to designate approximately 542 river mi (872 river km) in 16 units as critical habitat for the Atlantic pigtoe. All of the units are currently occupied by the species and contain all of the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species. These proposed critical habitat areas, described below, constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the Atlantic pigtoe. Table 3 shows the name, land ownership of the riparian areas surrounding the units, and approximate river miles of the proposed designated units for the Atlantic pigtoe. Because all streambeds are navigable waters, the actual critical habitat units are all owned by the State in which they are located.
We present brief descriptions of all proposed units, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for Atlantic pigtoe, below.
Unit 1 consists of 29 river mi (46.7 river km) of Craig Creek in Craig and Botecourt Counties, Virginia. The land adjacent to Craig Creek is primarily private, although some land along the river is federally owned by George Washington and Jefferson National Forest (GWJ NF). The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required to address excess nutrients, sediment, and pollutants that enter the creek and serve as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria and toxins, reducing water quality for the species. Sources of these types of pollution are wastewater, agricultural runoff, and urban stormwater runoff. Five stream reaches, totaling approximately 21 miles, are impaired for aquatic life in the lower Craig Creek watershed. Impairment is indicated by low benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessments, pH issues, high temperature, and fecal coliform.
The GWJ NF surrounds the Craig Creek Subbasin; protections and management of the National Forest will likely enable habitat conditions (water quality, water quantity/flow, instream substrate, and connectivity) to remain high into the future. Targeted species restoration in conjunction with current associated-species restoration efforts in Johns, Dicks, and Little Oregon Creeks within the Craig Creek Subbasin will likely improve the Atlantic pigtoe's resiliency in these areas. Maintenance of forested buffer conditions is essential to retaining high-quality instream habitat in this unit.
Unit 2 consists of a 1-mile (1.6-km) segment of Mill Creek at the VA39 (Mountain Valley Road) crossing in Bath County, Virginia. The land surrounding the creek is privately owned. The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within Unit 2 to address excess nutrients, sediment, and pollutants that enter the creek and serve as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria and toxins. Sources of these types of pollution are wastewater, agricultural runoff, and urban stormwater runoff.
The GWJ NF surrounds most of the Mill Creek watershed; protections and management of the National Forest will likely enable habitat conditions to remain high into the future. Targeted species restoration in conjunction with current associated-species restoration efforts in the Cowpasture River Basin will likely improve the Atlantic pigtoe's resiliency in these areas. Maintenance of forested buffer conditions is essential to retaining high-quality instream habitat in this unit.
Unit 3 consists of a 3-mile (4.8-km) segment of the Middle James River downstream of its confluence with the Slate River, under the crossing of VA Hwy 15 (James Madison Highway) along the boundary of Fluvanna and Buckingham Counties, Virginia. The riparian areas on either side of the river are privately owned. The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within Unit 3 to address excess nutrients, sediment, and pollutants that enter the river and serve as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria and toxins. Sources of these types of pollution are wastewater, agricultural runoff, and urban stormwater runoff.
Unit 4 consists of 50 river miles (80.5 river km) of the Nottoway River in Nottoway, Lunenburg, Brunswick, Dinwiddie, and Greenville Counties, Virginia. The proposed designation begins downstream of the Nottoway River's confluence with Dickerson Creek and ends at its confluence with Buckskin Creek. Land bordering the river is primarily privately owned, although some of the land along the river is part of the Fort Pickett National Guard Installation (see Exemptions, below). The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. In the past decade, the Nottoway River suffered from several seasonal drought events, which not only caused very low dissolved oxygen conditions but also decreased food delivery because of minimal flows. In addition, these conditions led to increased predation rates on potential host fishes that were concentrated into low-flow refugia (
Unit 5 consists of 5 miles (8 km) of the Meherrin River in Brunswick County, Virginia, from approximately 1.5 river miles below the confluence with Saddletree Creek under VA Hwy 46 (Christana Highway) to VA715 (Iron Bridge Road). The land on either side of the proposed critical habitat unit is privately owned. The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Like the Nottoway River, the Meherrin River has been affected by seasonal droughts, resulting in low flow
Unit 6 consists of 7 miles (11.3 km) of the Dan River along the border of Virginia and North Carolina from the Stateline Bridge Road in Pittsylvania County, Virginia, downstream to the confluence with Williamson Creek in Rockingham County, North Carolina. The land on either side of the proposed critical habitat unit is privately owned. The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address threats. For example, a Duke Energy Coal Ash spill occurred upstream of this unit in February 2014; subsequent actions related to mitigating the effects of the spill will ultimately benefit the habitat in this unit, potentially allowing species restoration efforts.
Unit 7 consists of 12 miles (19.3 km) of Aarons Creek, from NC96 in Granville County, North Carolina, downstream across the North Carolina-Virginia border to VA602 (White House Road) along the Mecklenburg County-Halifax County line in Virginia. Land on either side of the proposed critical habitat unit is privately owned. The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. There are two impaired stream reaches totaling approximately 12 miles (19.3 km) in the Aarons Creek watershed. An “impairment” designation by the State here is a result of low dissolved oxygen and low benthic-macroinvertebrate assessment scores. Special management focused on maintaining riparian buffers and following BMPs will be important for the habitat in this unit.
This unit consists of 85 miles (136.8 km) of the mainstem of the upper and middle Tar River as well as several tributaries (Bear Swamp Creek, Crooked Creek, Cub Creek, and Shelton Creek), all in North Carolina. Land bordering the river and creeks is mostly privately owned (74 mi (119 km)), with some areas in public ownership or easements (11 mi (17 km)). The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus run off the land or are discharged into the waters, causing too much growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation and leading to extremely low levels of dissolved oxygen. As a result, there are six “impaired” stream reaches (as defined on the State's 303d list) totaling approximately 32 miles in the unit. Expansion or addition of new wastewater discharges are also a threat to habitat in this unit. Special management focused on agricultural BMPs, implementing highest levels of treatment of wastewater practicable, maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
This unit consists of a 58-mile (93.3-km) segment of Sandy/Swift Creek in Granville, Vance, Franklin, and Nash Counties, North Carolina. Land bordering the river and creeks is mostly privately owned (50 mi (80 km)) with some areas covered by protective easements (8 mi (13km)). The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus run off the land or are discharged into the waters, causing excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation and leading to extremely low levels of dissolved oxygen; there is one “impaired” stream reach totaling approximately 5 miles (8 km) in this unit. Special management focused on agricultural BMPs, maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
This unit consists of 85 miles (136.8 km) in Fishing Creek, Little Fishing Creek, Shocco Creek, and Maple Branch located in Warren, Halifax, Franklin, and Nash Counties, North Carolina. The land bordering the creeks includes private parcels (56 miles (90 km)), protective easements (14 miles (23 km)), and State game lands (15 miles (24 km)). The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus run off the land or are discharged into the waters, causing excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation and leading to extremely low levels of dissolved oxygen. Special management focused on agricultural BMPs, maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
This unit consists of 30 miles (48.3 km) of the Lower Tar River and Fishing Creek in Edgecombe County, North Carolina, from NC97 near Leggett, North Carolina, to the Edgecombe-Pitt County line near NC33. Land along the river is divided between private parcels, protective easements, State game lands, and State park land. The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus run off the land or are discharged into the waters, causing excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation and leading to extremely low levels of dissolved oxygen. Special management focused on agricultural BMPs, maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
This unit consists of 60 river miles (95 river km) in four subunits including Flat River, Little River, Eno River, and the Upper Eno River. The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the species.
The Flat River subunit consists of 19 river miles (30.6 river km) in the Flat River Subbasin in Person and Durham Counties, North Carolina, including the South Flat River downstream of Dick Coleman Road, the North Flat River near Parsonage Road, and Deep Creek near Helena-Moriah Road downstream where each river converges into the Flat River downstream of State Forest Road. Land along the Flat River subunit includes private parcels, easements, and State forest land.
The Little River subunit includes 18 river miles (29 river km) of the North Fork and South Fork Little Rivers in Orange and Durham Counties, North Carolina, bordered by both private land and easements.
The Upper Eno River subunit consists of 4 river miles (6.4 river km) in Orange County, North Carolina, including the West Fork Eno River upstream of Cedar Grove Road to the confluence with McGowan Creek. This subunit is bordered by 3 miles (4.8 km) of private land and 1 mile (1.6 km) of conservation parcels.
The Eno River subunit consists of 18 river miles (29 river km) in Orange and Durham Counties, North Carolina, from below Eno Mountain Road to NC15-501. Land bordering the river contains private land, State park land, and conservation parcels.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Large quantities of nutrients (especially nitrogen) contributed by fertilizers and animal waste washed from lawns, urban developed areas, farm fields, and animal operations are impacting aquatic ecosystems in this unit. More than 300 permitted point-source sites discharge wastewater into streams and rivers in the basin. Development is also impacting areas along the Upper Neuse River.
Special management considerations in this unit include using the highest available wastewater treatment technologies, retrofitting stormwater systems, eliminating direct stormwater discharges, increasing open space, maintaining connected riparian corridors, and treating invasive species (like hydrilla).
This unit consists of 61 river miles (98.2 river km) in five subunits including Swift Creek, Middle Creek, Upper Little River, Middle Little River, and Contentnea Creek, all in North Carolina. The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the species.
The Middle Creek subunit is 19 river miles (30.6 river km), and the Swift Creek subunit is 25 river miles (40.2 river km), both in Wake and Johnston Counties. They are primarily bordered by private land with some easement parcels.
The Upper Little River subunit includes 4 miles (6.4 km) of the Upper Little River from the confluence with Perry Creek to Fowler Road in Wake County, North Carolina. The land along this subunit is primarily county-owned with some private parcels.
The Middle Little River subunit includes 11 river miles (17.7 river km) in Johnston County, North Carolina. This area is bordered predominantly by private land and some conservation parcels.
The Contentnea Creek subunit consists of 2 river miles (3.2 river km) near NC581 in Wilson County, North Carolina, bordered entirely by private land.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Large quantities of nutrients (especially nitrogen) contributed by fertilizers and animal waste washed from lawns, urban developed areas, farm fields, and animal operations are impacting aquatic ecosystems in this unit. More than 300 permitted point-source sites discharge wastewater into streams and rivers in the basin. Development is also impacting areas along the Middle Neuse River.
There are 49 State-defined “impaired” stream reaches totaling approximately 447 miles (719.4 km) in this unit. There are many factors that cause an impairment label to be given by the State, including low benthic-macroinvertebrate assessment scores, low pH, poor fish community scores, low dissolved oxygen, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), copper, and zinc. There are 349 non-major and 6 major (Apex Water Reclamation Facility, Central Johnston County Waste Water Treatment Plant, Cary Waste Water Treatment Plant, City of Raleigh Wastewater Treatment Plant, Dempsey Benton Water Treatment Plant, and Terrible Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant) permitted discharges in this MU. Special management related to developed areas, including using the best available wastewater treatment technologies, retrofitting stormwater systems, eliminating direct stormwater discharges, increasing open space in the watershed, and maintaining connected riparian corridors, will be important to maintain habitat in this unit.
This unit consists of 6 mi (9.7 km) of habitat in the New Hope Creek in Orange County, North Carolina. The land bordering the creek includes private parcels and some easements. The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Large quantities of nutrients (especially nitrogen) contributed by fertilizers and animal waste washed from lawns, urban developed areas, farm fields, and animal operations are impacting aquatic ecosystems in this unit. More than 200 permitted point-source sites discharge wastewater into streams and rivers in the basin. Development is also impacting areas along New Hope Creek.
Special management, including using the best available wastewater treatment technologies, retrofitting stormwater systems, eliminating direct stormwater discharges, increasing open space in the watershed, and maintaining connected riparian corridors, may be required to maintain habitat in this unit.
The Deep River Subbasin unit consists of 10 river miles (16.1 river km) in Randolph County, North Carolina, including the mainstem as well as Richland Creek and Brush Creek. Land bordering the area is privately owned. The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the species.
The Deep River Subbasin is situated in a mostly rural part of the Cape Fear River Basin, and large-scale agriculture and livestock operations are present. Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to insure the use of agriculture BMPs, especially preventing cattle access to streams, as well as protecting forested riparian buffers to benefit habitat in this unit.
This unit consists of 40 miles (64.4 km) of Little River in Randolph and Montgomery Counties, North Carolina. Land along the river is predominantly privately owned with some parcels in conservation easements. The unit currently supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the species.
Habitat fragmentation from dams and reservoirs is impacting the aquatic ecosystems in this unit. Sedimentation from intensive agriculture is the top pollution problem in the basin. Special management considerations or protection may include the use of agricultural BMPs, especially preventing cattle access to streams, as well as protecting forested riparian buffers to benefit habitat in this unit.
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) required each military installation that includes land and water suitable for the
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that: “The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan prepared under section 670a of this title [the Sikes Act; 16 U.S.C. 670a], if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.”
We consult with the military on the development and implementation of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyze INRMPs developed by military installations located within the range of proposed critical habitat designations to determine if they meet the criteria for exemption from critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
We have identified one area within the proposed critical habitat designation that consists of Department of Defense lands with a completed, Service-approved INRMP. The Army National Guard—Maneuver Training Center Fort Pickett (Fort Pickett) is located in southeastern North Carolina on 41,000 acres in three counties: Nottoway, Brunswick, and Dinwiddie. Fort Pickett is federally owned land that is managed by the Virginia Army National Guard and is subject to all federal laws and regulations. The Fort Pickett INRMP covers fiscal years 2017-2021, and serves as the principal management plan governing all natural resource activities on the installation. Among the goals and objectives listed in the INRMP is habitat management for rare, threatened, and endangered species, and the Atlantic pigtoe is included in this plan. Management actions that benefit the Atlantic pigtoe include maintenance and improvement of habitat, monitoring mussel populations, and improving water quality. Additional elements of the management actions included in the INRMP that will benefit Atlantic pigtoe and its habitat are forest management, stream and wetland protection zones, and public outreach and education.
Fourteen miles (22.5 km) of Unit 4 (CR1—Nottoway River Subbasin) are located within the area covered by this INRMP. Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified streams are subject to the Fort Pickett National Guard Training Center INRMP and that conservation efforts identified in the INRMP will provide a benefit to the Atlantic pigtoe. Therefore, streams within this installation are exempt from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not including approximately 14 river miles (22.5 river km) of habitat in this proposed critical habitat designation because of this exemption.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor.
As discussed below, we are not proposing to exclude any areas from critical habitat. However, the final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment period and information about the economic impact of designation.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We then must evaluate whether a specific critical habitat designation may restrict or modify specific land uses or activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the result of the species being listed under the Act versus those attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socioeconomic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat (
For this proposed designation, we developed an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic impacts
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by the proposed critical habitat designation. In our March 19, 2018, IEM describing probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed designation, we first identified probable incremental economic impacts associated with each of the following categories of activities: (1) Federal lands management (National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Department of Defense); (2) agriculture; (3) forest management/silviculture/timber; (4) development; (5) recreation; (6) restoration activities; and (7) transportation. Additionally, we considered whether the activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation generally will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; under the Act, designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. If we list the species, as proposed in this document, in areas where the Atlantic pigtoe is present, under section 7 of the Act, Federal agencies would be required to consult with the Service on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the effects that would result from the species being listed and those attributable to the critical habitat designation (
The proposed critical habitat designation for the Atlantic pigtoe totals approximately 542 river miles (872 river km), all of which are currently occupied by the species. In these areas, any actions that may affect the species or its habitat would likely also affect proposed critical habitat, and it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be required to address the adverse modification standard over and above those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the species. Therefore, the only additional costs that are expected in all of the proposed critical habitat designation are administrative costs, due to the fact that this additional analysis will require time and resources by both the Federal action agency and the Service. However, it is believed that, in most circumstances, these costs would not reach the threshold of “significant” under E.O. 12866. We anticipate a maximum of 109 section 7 consultations annually at a total incremental cost of less than $230,000 per year.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our required determinations. See
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. As discussed above, we prepared an analysis of the probable economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related factors. The Secretary does not propose to exercise his discretion to exclude any areas from the final designation based on economic impacts. However, during the development of a final designation, we will consider any additional economic impact information we receive during the public comment period, which may result in areas being excluded from the final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national security impact might exist. In preparing this proposal, we have determined that, other than the land exempted under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act based upon the existence of an approved INRMP, the lands within the proposed
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national security. We consider a number of factors including whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the species in the area such as HCPs, safe harbor agreements, or candidate conservation agreements with assurances, or whether there are non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at the existence of tribal conservation plans and partnerships and consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the designation.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are currently no HCPs or other management plans for the Atlantic pigtoe, and the proposed designation does not include any tribal lands or trust resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary does not propose to exercise his discretion to exclude any areas from the final designation based on other relevant impacts.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
We published a final regulation with a new definition of destruction or adverse modification on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7214). Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the conservation of a listed species. Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or significantly delay development of such features.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or private lands that require a Federal permit or that involve some other Federal action. Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require conference or consultation or both include management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Army National Guard, U.S. Forest Service, and National Park Service; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We define “reasonable and prudent alternatives” (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that result in a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the conservation of the Atlantic pigtoe. Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species or that preclude or significantly delay development of such features. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological features essential to the
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation. Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in consultation for the Atlantic pigtoe. These activities include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would alter the minimum flow or the existing flow regime. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, impoundment, channelization, water diversion, water withdrawal, and hydropower generation. These activities could eliminate or reduce the habitat necessary for the growth and reproduction of the Atlantic pigtoe and its fish host by decreasing or altering flows to levels that would adversely affect their ability to complete their life cycles.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter water chemistry or temperature. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, release of chemicals (including pharmaceuticals, metals, and salts), biological pollutants, or heated effluents into the surface water or connected groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release (non-point source). These activities could alter water conditions to levels that are beyond the tolerances of the mussel or its host fish and result in direct or cumulative adverse effects to these individuals and their life cycles.
(3) Actions that would significantly increase sediment deposition within the stream channel. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, excessive sedimentation from livestock grazing, road construction, channel alteration, timber harvest, off-road vehicle use, and other watershed and floodplain disturbances. These activities could eliminate or reduce the habitat necessary for the growth and reproduction of the mussel and its fish host by increasing the sediment deposition to levels that would adversely affect their ability to complete their life cycles.
(4) Actions that would significantly increase the filamentous algal community within the stream channel. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, release of nutrients into the surface water or connected groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release (non-point source). These activities can result in excessive filamentous algae filling streams and reducing habitat for the mussel and its fish hosts, degrading water quality during their decay, and decreasing oxygen levels at night from their respiration to levels below the tolerances of the mussel and/or its fish host. Algae can also directly compete with mussel offspring by covering the sediment that prevents the glochidia from settling into the sediment.
(5) Actions that would significantly alter channel morphology or geometry. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, channelization, impoundment, road and bridge construction, mining, dredging, and destruction of riparian vegetation. These activities may lead to changes in water flows and levels that would degrade or eliminate the mussel or its fish host and/or their habitats. These actions can also lead to increased sedimentation and degradation in water quality to levels that are beyond the tolerances of the mussel or its fish host.
(6) Actions that result in the introduction, spread, or augmentation of nonnative aquatic species in occupied stream segments, or in stream segments that are hydrologically connected to occupied stream segments, even if those segments are occasionally intermittent, or introduction of other species that compete with or prey on the Atlantic pigtoe. Possible actions could include, but are not limited to, stocking of nonnative fishes, stocking of sport fish, or other related actions. These activities can introduce parasites or disease for host fish, and can result in direct predation, or affect the growth, reproduction, and survival, of Atlantic pigtoes.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to threatened wildlife. Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary has the discretion to issue such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species. The Secretary also has the discretion to prohibit, by regulation with respect to any threatened species of fish or wildlife, any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1) of the Act. The same prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 17.31, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these) threatened wildlife within the United States or on the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. To the extent the section 9(a)(1) prohibitions apply only to endangered species, this proposed rule would apply those same prohibitions to the Atlantic pigtoe with some exceptions.
In accordance with section 4(d) of the Act, the regulations implementing the Act include a provision that generally applies to threatened wildlife the same prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife (50 CFR 17.31(a), 17.32). However, for any threatened species, the Service may instead develop a protective regulation that is specific to the conservation needs of that species. Such a regulation would contain all of the protections applicable to that species (50 CFR 17.31(c)); this may include some of the general prohibitions and exceptions under 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, but would also include species-specific protections that may be more or less restrictive than the general provisions at 50 CFR 17.31.
Under this proposed 4(d) rule, except as noted below, all prohibitions and provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 would apply to the Atlantic pigtoe:
(1) Species restoration efforts by State wildlife agencies, including collection of broodstock, tissue collection for genetic analysis, captive propagation, and subsequent stocking into currently occupied and unoccupied areas within the historical range of the species.
(2) Channel restoration projects that create natural, physically stable, ecologically functioning streams (or stream and wetland systems) that are reconnected with their groundwater aquifers. These projects can be accomplished using a variety of methods, but the desired outcome is a natural channel with low shear stress (force of water moving against the channel); bank heights that enable reconnection to the floodplain; a reconnection of surface and groundwater systems, resulting in perennial flows in the channel; riffles and pools comprised of existing soil, rock, and wood instead of large imported materials; low compaction of soils within adjacent riparian areas; and
(3) Bank stabilization projects that use bioengineering methods to replace pre-existing, bare, eroding stream banks with vegetated, stable stream banks, thereby reducing bank erosion and instream sedimentation and improving habitat conditions for the species. Following these bioengineering methods, stream banks may be stabilized using live stakes (live, vegetative cuttings inserted or tamped into the ground in a manner that allows the stake to take root and grow), live fascines (live branch cuttings, usually willows, bound together into long, cigar shaped bundles), or brush layering (cuttings or branches of easily rooted tree species layered between successive lifts of soil fill). These methods would not include the sole use of quarried rock (rip-rap) or the use of rock baskets or gabion structures.
(4) Silviculture practices and forest management activities that:
(a) Implement highest-standard best management practices, particularly for Streamside Management Zones, stream crossings, and forest roads; and
(b) Comply with forest practice guidelines related to water quality standards, or comply with Sustainable Forestry Initiative/Forest Stewardship Council/American Tree Farm System certification standards for both forest management and responsible fiber sourcing.
These BMPs are publicly available on websites for these organizations, and can currently be found below:
These actions and activities may have some minimal level of mortality, harm, or disturbance to the Atlantic pigtoe, but are not expected to adversely affect the species' conservation and recovery efforts. In fact, we expect they would have a net beneficial effect on the species. Across the species' range, instream habitats have been degraded physically by sedimentation and by direct channel disturbance. The activities proposed in this rule will correct some of these problems, creating more favorable habitat conditions for the species. These provisions are necessary because, absent protections, the species is likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. Additionally, these provisions are advisable because the species needs active conservation to improve the quality of its habitat. By exempting some of the general prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, these provisions can encourage cooperation by landowners and other affected parties in implementing conservation measures. This will allow for use of the land while at the same time ensuring the preservation of suitable habitat and minimizing impact on the species.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance propagation or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in
This proposed rule is not an Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include
The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking itself, and, therefore, are not required to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal action agencies would be directly regulated if we adopt the proposed critical habitat designation. There is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. In our economic analysis, we did not find that the designation of this proposed critical habitat will significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
(1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this proposed rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments because the lands being proposed for critical habitat designation are owned by the States of Virginia and North Carolina. These government entities do not fit the definition of “small governmental jurisdiction.” Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical habitat for Atlantic pigtoe in a takings implications assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation with, appropriate State resource agencies in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. From a federalism perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The proposed designation may have some benefit to these governments because the areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the physical or biological features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist these local governments in long-range planning (because these local governments no longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, this proposed rule identifies the elements of physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed areas of designated critical habitat are presented on maps, and the proposed rule provides several options for the interested public to obtain more detailed location information, if desired.
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), need not be prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses pursuant to NEPA in connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes. There are no tribal lands in the proposed critical habitat designation.
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment Team and Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
(a) Atlantic pigtoe (
(1)
(2)
(i) Species restoration efforts by State wildlife agencies, including collection of broodstock, tissue collection for genetic analysis, captive propagation, and subsequent stocking into currently occupied and unoccupied areas within the historical range of the species.
(ii) Channel restoration projects that create natural, physically stable, ecologically functioning streams (or stream and wetland systems) that are reconnected with their groundwater aquifers. These projects can be accomplished using a variety of methods, but the desired outcome is a natural channel with low shear stress (force of water moving against the channel); bank heights that enable reconnection to the floodplain; a reconnection of surface and groundwater systems, resulting in perennial flows in the channel; riffles and pools comprised of existing soil, rock, and wood instead of large imported materials; low compaction of soils within adjacent riparian areas; and inclusion of riparian wetlands. Second- to third-order, headwater streams reconstructed in this way would offer suitable habitats for the Atlantic pigtoe and contain stable channel features, such as pools, glides, runs, and riffles, which could be used by the species and its host fish for spawning, rearing, growth, feeding, migration, and other normal behaviors.
(iii) Bank stabilization projects that use bioengineering methods to replace pre-existing, bare, eroding stream banks with vegetated, stable stream banks, thereby reducing bank erosion and instream sedimentation and improving habitat conditions for the species. Following these bioengineering methods, stream banks may be stabilized using live stakes (live, vegetative cuttings inserted or tamped into the ground in a manner that allows the stake to take root and grow), live fascines (live branch cuttings, usually willows, bound together into long, cigar shaped bundles), or brush layering (cuttings or branches of easily rooted tree species layered between successive lifts of soil fill). These methods would not include the sole use of quarried rock (rip-rap) or the use of rock baskets or gabion structures.
(iv) Silviculture practices and forest management activities that:
(A) Implement highest-standard best management practices, particularly for Streamside Management Zones, stream crossings, and forest roads; and
(B) Comply with forest practice guidelines related to water quality standards, or comply with Sustainable Forestry Initiative/Forest Stewardship Council/American Tree Farm System certification standards for both forest management and responsible fiber sourcing.
(b) [Reserved]
(f)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Craig, Botecourt, Bath, Fluvanna, Buckingham, Nottoway, Lunenburg, Brunswick, Dinwiddie, Greensville, and Pittsylvania Counties, Virginia; and Rockingham, Granville, Mecklenburg, Halifax, Vance, Franklin, Nash, Warren, Leggett, Edgecombe, Person, Durham, Wake, Johnston, Orange, Randolph, and Montgomery Counties, North Carolina, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Atlantic pigtoe consist of the following components:
(i) Suitable substrates and connected instream habitats, characterized by geomorphically stable stream channels and banks (
(ii) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic flow regime (which includes the severity, frequency, duration, and seasonality of discharge over time), necessary to maintain benthic habitats where the species is found and to maintain connectivity of streams with the floodplain, allowing the exchange of nutrients and sediment for maintenance of the mussel's and fish host's habitat, food availability, spawning habitat for native fishes, and the ability for newly transformed juveniles to settle and become established in their habitats.
(iii) Water and sediment quality (including, but not limited to, conductivity, hardness, turbidity, temperature, pH, ammonia, heavy metals, and chemical constituents) necessary to sustain natural physiological processes for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages.
(iv) The presence and abundance of fish hosts necessary for recruitment of the Atlantic pigtoe.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they
(4)
(5)
(6) Map of Unit JR1—Craig Creek follows:
(7) Map of Unit JR2—Mill Creek follows:
(8) Map of Unit JR3—Middle James River follows:
(9) Map of Unit CR1—Nottoway River Subbasin follows:
(10) Map of Unit CR2—Meherrin River follows:
(11) Map of Unit RR1—Dan River follows:
(12) Map of Unit RR2—Aarons Creek follows:
(13) Map of Unit TR1—Upper/Middle Tar River follows:
(14) Map of Unit TR2—Sandy/Swift Creek follows:
(15) Map of Unit TR3—Fishing Creek Subbasin follows:
(16) Map of Unit TR4—Lower Tar River follows:
(17) Map of Unit NR1—Upper Neuse River Subbasin follows:
(18) Map of Unit NR2—Middle Neuse River follows:
(19) Map of Unit CF1—New Hope Creek follows:
(20) Map of Unit CF2—Deep River follows:
(21) Map of Unit YR1— Little River follows:
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 |