| Page Range | 55093-55245 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 55099 - Wassenaar Arrangement 2017 Plenary Agreements Implementation | |
| 83 FR 55243 - Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela | |
| 83 FR 55239 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Sudan | |
| 83 FR 55210 - Sunshine Act Meeting; Cancellation | |
| 83 FR 55134 - Notification of Public Meetings on Requirement for Helicopters To Use the New York North Shore Helicopter Route | |
| 83 FR 55201 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 55210 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 55135 - 340B Drug Pricing Program Ceiling Price and Manufacturer Civil Monetary Penalties Regulation | |
| 83 FR 55233 - Notice of Availability of Categorical Exclusion and Record of Decision (CATEX/ROD) for Boston Harbor Seaplane Operation, MA | |
| 83 FR 55186 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request; New Data Collection (ICR New) of the No Wrong Door (NWD) System Management Tool | |
| 83 FR 55133 - Request for Comments on Requirement for Helicopters To Use the New York North Shore Helicopter Route | |
| 83 FR 55234 - Notice of Availability of the Federal Aviation Administration Record of Decision and Adoption of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Modernization and Enhancement of Ranges, Airspace, and Training Areas in the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex in Alaska, for the Fox 3 Military Operations Area (MOA) Expansion and Paxon/Delta 5 MOA Establishment and Night Joint Training, Extending MOA Times of Use for the United States Air Force | |
| 83 FR 55153 - Application to Pilot; Federal Student Aid's Next Generation Financial Services Environment-Payment Vehicle Account Program Pilot | |
| 83 FR 55099 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Schooner Bayou Canal, Little Prairie Ridge, LA | |
| 83 FR 55093 - Organization; Funding and Fiscal Affairs, Loan Policies and Operations, and Funding Operations; Farmer Mac Investment Eligibility | |
| 83 FR 55233 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Hazardous Materials Training Requirements | |
| 83 FR 55108 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries | |
| 83 FR 55142 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Idaho Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 55146 - Marine Mammals; File No. 21636 | |
| 83 FR 55147 - Marine Mammals; File No. 22183 | |
| 83 FR 55163 - Release of Draft Integrated Review Plan for the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
| 83 FR 55236 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive License | |
| 83 FR 55164 - FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Public Virtual Meeting; Request for Comments on Prospective Ad hoc Candidates | |
| 83 FR 55232 - CSX Transportation, Inc.-Abandonment Exemption-in Cobb County, Ga. | |
| 83 FR 55224 - Development Company Loan Program-Job Creation and Retention Requirements; Additional Areas for Higher Portfolio Average | |
| 83 FR 55190 - Notice of Public Meeting in Preparation for the IMO's One Hundred Twenty First Session of IMO's Council | |
| 83 FR 55154 - Notice of 229 Boundary Revision at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant | |
| 83 FR 55232 - Delegation of Authority 374-1: Authority to Accept Volunteer Services From Students | |
| 83 FR 55157 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 55158 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 55106 - Compatibility With Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; Petition of City of Richardson, Texas Order on Reconsideration II | |
| 83 FR 55166 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 83 FR 55200 - Notice of Temporary Closure of Public Land in Clark County, Nevada | |
| 83 FR 55199 - Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision for the EDF Renewable Energy Palen Solar Photovoltaic Project Riverside County, California | |
| 83 FR 55149 - Procurement List; Addition and Deletions | |
| 83 FR 55143 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 23-Buffalo, New York; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Panasonic Eco Solutions Solar New York America, Subzone 23E, (Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells), Buffalo, New York | |
| 83 FR 55142 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 158-Jackson, Mississippi; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Calsonic Kansei North America (Automotive Parts), Canton, Mississippi | |
| 83 FR 55144 - Uncovered Innerspring Units From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018 | |
| 83 FR 55150 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions | |
| 83 FR 55201 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Deep South Expansion Project, Lander and Eureka Counties, Nevada; Correction | |
| 83 FR 55208 - Notice of Intent To Award-Grant Awards for the Provision of Civil Legal Services to Eligible Low-Income Clients Beginning January 1, 2019; Correction | |
| 83 FR 55207 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Request for Comments; Consumer Expenditure Surveys: Quarterly Interview and Diary | |
| 83 FR 55189 - Health Center Program | |
| 83 FR 55205 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 55205 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration | |
| 83 FR 55102 - Interim Procedure for Requesting Recalculation of the Patent Term Adjustment With Respect to Information Disclosure Statements Accompanied by a Safe Harbor Statement | |
| 83 FR 55113 - Categorization of the Licensee Fee Category for Full-Cost Recovery | |
| 83 FR 55170 - Meeting of the Employee Thrift Advisory Council | |
| 83 FR 55160 - Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications: FreedomWorks, LLC | |
| 83 FR 55160 - California Department of Water Resources; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 83 FR 55156 - Texas LNG Brownsville, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Texas LNG Project | |
| 83 FR 55162 - Notice of Availability of Draft Guidance for Horizontal Directional Drill Monitoring, Inadvertent Return Response, and Contingency Plans | |
| 83 FR 55159 - Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process: Watson Associates | |
| 83 FR 55161 - Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process: Green Mountain Power Corporation | |
| 83 FR 55155 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-546); Comment Request; Extension | |
| 83 FR 55158 - Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date: Lackawanna Energy Center LLC | |
| 83 FR 55162 - Notice of Revised Schedule for Environmental Review of the Empire Pipeline, Inc., Empire North Project | |
| 83 FR 55109 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Several Groundfish Species in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 83 FR 55204 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Medical Technology Enterprise Consortium | |
| 83 FR 55204 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cooperative Research Group on Corrosion Under Insulation | |
| 83 FR 55167 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewal; Comment Request (OMB Nos. 3064-0111;-0136; and -0171) | |
| 83 FR 55208 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures | |
| 83 FR 55206 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Amended Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act | |
| 83 FR 55203 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Undersea Technology Innovation Consortium | |
| 83 FR 55204 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cooperative Research Group on ROS-Industrial Consortium-Americas | |
| 83 FR 55148 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 55149 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 55148 - Fisheries of the Caribbean; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 55147 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 55146 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 55171 - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, (BSC, NCIPC) | |
| 83 FR 55171 - Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory Board), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) | |
| 83 FR 55172 - Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis Meeting (ACET) | |
| 83 FR 55153 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 55151 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 55152 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 55219 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to the Recovery Plan and Wind-Down Plan | |
| 83 FR 55202 - Certain Magnetic Data Storage and Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same (II); Notice of Requests for Statements on the Public Interest | |
| 83 FR 55214 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Concerning Certain Data Elements on Form G-45 Under MSRB Rule G-45, on Reporting of Information on Municipal Fund Securities | |
| 83 FR 55210 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate the Pricing Schedule Rules | |
| 83 FR 55223 - Submission to OMB; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 55209 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 55222 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 55221 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 55209 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 55224 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 55137 - Shipping Act, Merchant Marine, and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) Provisions; Fishing Vessel, Fishing Facility and Individual Fishing Quota Lending Program | |
| 83 FR 55101 - Safety Zone; Columbia River, Cascade Locks, OR | |
| 83 FR 55170 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 55170 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities | |
| 83 FR 55187 - Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection: Developing Drugs for Treatment; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 55107 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; Commercial Closure for Spanish Mackerel | |
| 83 FR 55235 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 13997 | |
| 83 FR 55188 - Product Development in Hemophilia; Public Workshop | |
| 83 FR 55198 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status | |
| 83 FR 55197 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: G-79A; Information Relating to Beneficiary of Private Bill | |
| 83 FR 55226 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 55150 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 55228 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 55100 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; St. Croix River, Stillwater, MN | |
| 83 FR 55190 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 55189 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 55100 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Upper Mississippi River, LaCrosse, WI | |
| 83 FR 55206 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension With No Changes, of a Previously Approved Collection; Sequestered Juror Information Form | |
| 83 FR 55191 - North Carolina; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 83 FR 55195 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 55192 - Georgia; Emergency and Related Determinations | |
| 83 FR 55172 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Accreditation Commission for Health Care, Inc (ACHC) for Approval of its End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Facility Accreditation Program | |
| 83 FR 55174 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Quarterly Listing of Program Issuances-July Through September 2018 | |
| 83 FR 55194 - Georgia; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 83 FR 55105 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Revisions to Requirements for Discharge Planning for Hospitals, Critical Access Hospitals, and Home Health Agencies; Extension of Timeline for Publication of Final Rule | |
| 83 FR 55197 - Georgia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 83 FR 55199 - Indian Gaming; Approval of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact Amendment in the State of Oklahoma | |
| 83 FR 55191 - Wisconsin; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 83 FR 55192 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 55111 - Domestic Dates Produced or Packed in Riverside County, California; Increased Assessment Rate | |
| 83 FR 55164 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
| 83 FR 55114 - Federal Home Loan Bank Housing Goals Amendments | |
| 83 FR 55235 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on the Hampton Roads Crossing Study in the Cities of Hampton and Norfolk, Virginia |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Air Force Department
Army Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
United States Marshals Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
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.
Farm Credit Administration.
Final rule.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, we, or our) finalizes amendments to our regulations governing the eligibility of non-program investments held by the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (Farmer Mac). We are revising these regulations in compliance with section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act or DFA) by removing references to, and requirements relating to, credit ratings.
Joseph Connor, Associate Director for Policy and Analysis, Office of Secondary Market Oversight, (703) 883-4364, TTY (703) 883-4056,
The purpose of this final rule is to replace references to credit rating agencies with other appropriate standards used to determine the creditworthiness of investments and to revise obligor limits in our existing investment regulations applicable to Farmer Mac.
Farmer Mac is a federally chartered instrumentality that is an institution of the Farm Credit System (System) and a Government-sponsored enterprise (GSE). Farmer Mac was established and chartered by Congress to create a secondary market for agricultural real estate mortgage loans, rural housing mortgage loans, rural utility cooperative loans, and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) guaranteed portions of farm and rural development loans. Title VIII of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, (Act)
On July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was enacted, and section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act requires Federal agencies to review all regulatory references to nationally recognized statistical ratings organizations (NRSRO or credit rating agency) and replace those references with other appropriate standards for determining creditworthiness.
The existing rules on non-program investments for Farmer Mac are contained in part 652, subpart A, and rely, in part, on NRSRO credit ratings to characterize relative credit quality of various instruments. On June 16, 2011, we issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting comments on suitable alternatives to NRSRO credit ratings.
The final rule revises portfolio diversification requirements and the credit quality standards for eligible non-program investments that Farmer Mac may hold by replacing the reliance on NRSRO credit ratings and clarifying terminology. All changes are finalized as proposed unless otherwise indicated.
In § 652.5, we finalize proposed removal of the following terms and their related definitions because they are either obsolete or do not require a separate definition:
• Contingency Funding Plan (CFP),
• Eurodollar time deposit,
• Final maturity,
• General obligations,
• Liability Maturity Management Plan (LMMP),
• Liquid investments,
• Liquidity reserve,
• Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO),
• Revenue bond, and
• Weighted average life (WAL).
We also remove these terms from where they appear in § 652.20.
We finalize proposed changes to three existing terms and their definitions. First, the term “Government-sponsored
We finalize as proposed adding a new term to § 652.5: “Diversified investment fund”. The final rule defines a “diversified investment fund” (DIF) as an investment company registered under section 8 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80a-8. We had proposed, but are not finalizing, adding a definition for “obligor” and explain why in the following section.
We proposed adding a new definition for “obligor”, defining it as an issuer, guarantor, or other person or entity who has an obligation to pay a debt, including interest due, by a specified date or when payment is demanded. The existing regulation does not contain a definition for “obligor”, although the term is used in part 652. We proposed a definition to remove any questions on the terminology, but upon further consideration have determined the proposed definition adds little value as it reflects the commonly understood meaning of “obligor”. As such, we are not adding it to our rules.
We add a new paragraph (c)(5) to § 652.10, addressing diversification and investment concentration limits. As discussed below, we make changes to what was proposed when discussing obligor limits.
We finalize as proposed moving the investment concentration limit provisions from § 652.20(d)(1) to new § 652.10(c)(5).
We final as proposed reducing the obligor limit from 25 percent to 10 percent. We place a 10-percent regulatory capital limit on Farmer Mac's investment exposure to investments issued by any single entity, issuer, or obligor as we believe this limit enhances Farmer Mac's long-term safety and soundness by ensuring that if any single entity, issuer, or obligor were to default, only a modest portion of capital would be at risk.
The Council requested FCA consider lowering the proposed obligor limit to 5 percent. The Council commented that a 10-percent limit would be appropriate for well-capitalized financial institutions meeting Basel III capital requirements, but contends that Farmer Mac's capitalization is based on an internal economic capital model which the Council believes may not be consistent with Basel III requirements. Farmer Mac measures capital adequacy using an approach that is consistent with broadly accepted banking practices and standards. Further, OSMO conducts comprehensive oversight of all aspects of Farmer Mac's operations, including capital adequacy, utilizing detailed and robust information, a variety of metrics, and under stress testing. Therefore, we do not share the Council's views on Farmer Mac's capitalization, which views may be based on a more limited perspective.
Farmer Mac requested the obligor limit remain at 25 percent, remarking that the limit alone would not necessarily enhance Farmer Mac's long-term safety and soundness due to its internal risk management procedures and board-established guidelines. Farmer Mac contended that the limit could instead unintentionally impede management's ability to manage the portfolio under certain market conditions. We are finalizing a 10-percent single obligor limit as we believe the lower limit adds a level of safety against both credit loss as well as variation in liquidity specifically tied to a single issuer or obligor. In deciding where to set the investment concentration threshold, we considered, among other things, the historical relationship between Farmer Mac's capital surplus over the statutory minimum and the dollar amount that equates to 10 percent of regulatory capital.
Farmer Mac requested that inclusion of guarantors in the definition of “obligor” be made only to the extent that Farmer Mac's investment decision was based on the ability of the guarantor to fulfill its obligation under the guarantee. Farmer Mac offered as an example its purchases of municipal bonds where its analysis of credit quality might ignore a third-party guarantee in some cases. We understand that when making an investment decision, the weight given a guarantee backing the issuance will vary, but that does not alter the guarantor's financial obligations for the issuance and we believe all credit enhancement features of an investment should be considered.
The existing obligor limit explains that it applies to “. . . eligible investments issued by any single entity, issuer, or obligor.” We proposed clarifying this phrase by revising it to read “. . . allowable investments in any one obligor . . .”. In offering this change, we did not intend to change the meaning of whom is covered by the obligor limit. After reviewing comments made, we believe the proposed language for new § 652.10(c)(5)(i), if finalized, may be misread as altering the applicability of the obligor limit. As such, we finalize the first sentence of new § 652.10(c)(5)(i) using existing rule text, so it reads “You may not invest more than 10 percent of your Regulatory Capital in allowable investments issued by any single entity, issuer, or obligor.”
We remind Farmer Mac that existing § 652.10(b) requires its investment policies to address how Farmer Mac will manage the potential risk of one guarantor having financial commitments to several issuers. Concentration limits are directed at placing safeguards around the risk incurred from having too many investments tied to the same financial source, including situations where several issuers share the same guarantor. Under existing § 652.10(b), Farmer Mac is required to include limits on counterparty risks and risk diversification standards within its investment policies. As such, Farmer Mac's investment policies are expected to address the concentration risk that arises when a single guarantor is tied to too many issuers in whom Farmer Mac invests.
We proposed removing asset class limits for all but one of the existing nine named asset classes: The 50-percent exposure limit for GSE-issued investments. Farmer Mac asked us to eliminate all asset class limits, including the one for GSE securities.
Section 652.10 governing investment management outlines the responsibilities of the Farmer Mac board of directors for establishing appropriate policies and internal controls to prevent loss, and establishes a substantial set of requirements to foster appropriate investment purchase analysis, risk diversification and investment management. Further, as one commenter pointed out, existing § 652.10(c)(1)(i) already requires Farmer Mac to establish within its investment policy concentration limits for “asset classes or obligations with similar characteristics.” This requirement includes concentrations in GSE-issued mortgage-backed securities. We expect Farmer Mac to at least annually review its investment strategy, objectives and policy limits, making adjustments based on market conditions and its current risk profile and risk-bearing capacity.
All proposed changes to §§ 652.20, 620.23, and 652.25 are finalized as proposed except one technical correction. In § 652.20(a)(7) we mistakenly included a cross-citation to § 652.20(b)(4), when paragraph (b) only has three paragraphs. We are correcting the cross citation to only reference paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3).
We discuss the comments received on eligible non-program investments here.
We finalize replacing the “non-program investment eligibility criteria table” in § 652.20(a) with general categories of eligible non-program investments to eliminate references to NRSRO credit ratings within § 620.20.
The Council asked that the rule specifically exclude from § 652.20(a) those Farmer Mac program securities backed by USDA guarantees. The Council referenced paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) on GSE-issued ABS and MBS, asking that Farmer Mac securities be excluded. This rule provision identifies GSE, ABS, and MBS securities as eligible non-program investments. Securitizing USDA-guaranteed loans is among Farmer Mac's statutory authorities and we believe the assets are generally of high-credit quality and marketable to a sufficient degree to justify their inclusion in Level 3. As such, we make no change as requested by the commenter, but will take this suggestion into consideration in future rulemakings.
Farmer Mac commented upon preamble discussion in the proposed rule regarding the liquid nature of private placements, explaining its belief that private placements offer similar liquidity as securities acquired in the public markets. Farmer Mac asked that we allow using privately placed securities for liquidity purposes. In Section III.1.a. of the preamble to the proposed rule discussing § 652.20(a), we explained that “eligible non-program investments” may include private placements and therefore those private placements could be used for liquidity and other purposes to the extent allowed in § 652.15.
Farmer Mac also commented that any higher liquidity premium built in the yield of a privately placed security should offset its lower liquidity when traded. It is our view that a higher liquidity premium does not substantially increase the liquidity of an instrument, but rather serves to compensate the investor for accepting the instrument's lower level of liquidity. Thus, a higher liquidity premium alone would not be enough to satisfy requirements for using the investment to fund the liquidity reserve.
We proposed in § 652.20(b) a Farmer Mac investment standard where the investment obligors would have to have a “strong capacity” to meet financial commitments and the risk of default was “very low.” We are finalizing the rule to require that at least one obligor of an investment have “very strong capacity” to meet financial commitments, with a “very low” risk of default.
Both comments to our proposed rule effectively asked us to reassess whether the provision on the quality of eligible investments was similar in its expectations to that of other regulators. Farmer Mac commented that the creditworthiness standards in proposed § 652.20(b) appeared to be stricter than those implemented by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Farmer Mac explained that the OCC and the FDIC refer to the “adequate capacity” of the issuer to meet its financial commitments and “low” risk of default by the obligor. Farmer Mac requested that we reconsider using a “strong capacity” to meet financial commitments and replace it with “adequate capacity”. The FCC made a general remark that our Farmer Mac investment regulations should be no less stringent than those imposed on Farm Credit banks and associations.
In both the proposed rule and this final rulemaking, we considered the approaches used by OCC, FDIC, Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), Federal Reserve Board (FRB), and the National Credit Union Administration
A security is investment grade if the issuer of the security has an adequate capacity to meet financial commitments for the life of the asset. An issuer has adequate capacity to meet its financial commitments if the risk of default is low, and the full and timely repayment of principal and interest is expected.
Dodd-Frank instructed each financial regulatory agency to establish uniform standards of creditworthiness to the extent feasible and to consider both the regulated entities covered by the new standards and the purposes for which the creditworthiness standards will be used. In compliance with this requirement, FCA proposed adopting the standard used by other regulators (
However, we recognize that FCA recently issued a final rule governing the investment activities of Farm Credit banks and associations
We note that this modification also agrees in part with Farmer Mac's request for closer alignment with the other FRBs standard (in that we are only requiring a “very strong capacity” of at least one of the investment obligors, whereas in the proposed rule we required all obligors to meet the “strong capacity” standard). Also, we emphasize this language is not intended to change the quality or range of investments Farmer Mac is currently authorized to purchase and hold. Our intent is only to remove references to NRSRO ratings and reduce potential over reliance on NRSRO ratings in assessing an investment's creditworthiness and suitability for inclusion in investment portfolio. Meaning, Farmer Mac will continue to perform due diligence on its investments, adapting those reviews to the new risk assessment and classification standards. As noted in the investment management section of this subpart, § 652.10, and its associated preamble explanation, the depth of due diligence should be a function of the security's credit quality, the complexity of the structure, and the size of the investment.
As a technical change, we finalize a correction to § 652.20(b), whereby proposed (b)(1) language was inadvertently repeated in proposed (b)(2). We consolidate the repetitive language into (b)(1), removing it from paragraph (b)(2). In making this clarification, we make no change in the meaning of § 652.20(b)(2).
We finalize moving from § 652.20(e) to new § 652.23 the provisions on seeking FCA approval for those non-program investments not identified in the rule. We also finalize as proposed the amendments to this provision. We received no comments on these changes.
We finalize as proposed the amendments to § 652.25, which address ineligible investment activities. We received no comments on these changes. As part of the changes, we will no longer require the separate quarterly report on investments that lose their eligibility after purchase. We make this reporting change to alleviate redundancy as Farmer Mac already provides OSMO routine quarterly reports on the performance and risk on all of its liquidity investment portfolio, which we consider a sound practice. We believe the investment activity report covering all investment activities is the more valuable of the two reports for our oversight and should be continued.
We received no comments on the proposed new § 652.27. We finalize moving from § 652.25(d) to new § 652.27 provisions addressing FCA-required investment divestitures.
We finalize the proposed changes to the Table at § 652.40(c), including incorporating new terminology and clarifying certain MBS requirements.
The Council asked us to explain why the Table at § 652.40(c) includes GSE-issued senior debt with maturities less than 60 days as a Level 1 asset and greater than 60 days as a Level 3 asset but specifically excludes the debt of System banks and associations. The Council commented that treating the debt of Farm Credit banks and associations differently from that of Farmer Mac has no stated policy basis and asked that all Farmer Mac program securities held on balance sheet be excluded from the Level 1 category. At a minimum, the Table at § 652.40(c) should be clear that Farmer Mac securities are separate from the debt of Farm Credit banks and associations.
Debt issued by Farmer Mac does not share liability with the debt of Farm
The Council also commented that the rule permits Farmer Mac to count repurchase agreements backed by Level 1 assets of the liquidity reserve, stating it believes these items would be more appropriate at Level 3. The Council added that these items may not be as liquid as necessary for Level 1 since significant time is required to convert these assets. The Council added that, for consistency, if repurchase agreements are included as Level 1 assets for Farmer Mac, FCA should modify its regulations for the Farm Credit banks and associations to classify the assets at the same level as Farmer Mac.
We decline the requests of the Council. Repurchase agreements are justifiably classified as Level 1 liquidity instruments because their overnight maturity, combined with their Level 1 collateral, make the risk of loss exceedingly small under adverse market conditions. Moreover, FCA regulations for Farm Credit banks and associations currently include overnight repurchase agreements in the category of money market instruments.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Agriculture, Banks, banking, Capital, Investments, Rural areas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 652 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
Secs. 4.12, 5.9, 5.17, 8.11, 8.31, 8.32, 8.33, 8.34, 8.35, 8.36, 8.37, 8.41 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2183, 2243, 2252, 2279aa-11, 2279bb, 2279bb-1, 2279bb-2, 2279bb-3, 2279bb-4, 2279bb-5, 2279bb-6, 2279cc); sec. 514 of Pub. L. 102-552, 106 Stat. 4102; sec. 118 of Pub. L. 104-105, 110 Stat. 168; sec. 939A of Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1326, 1887 (15 U.S.C. 78o-7 note) (July 21, 2010).
(1) Pass-through securities or participation certificates that represent ownership of a fractional undivided interest in a specified pool of residential (excluding home equity loans), multifamily or commercial mortgages, or
(2) A multiclass security (including collateralized mortgage obligations and real estate mortgage investment conduits) that is backed by a pool of residential, multifamily or commercial real estate mortgages, pass through MBS, or other multiclass MBS.
(3) This definition does not include agricultural mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by Farmer Mac itself.
(c) * * *
(5)
(a) Eligible investments consist of:
(1) A non-convertible senior debt security.
(2) A money market instrument with a maturity of 1 year or less.
(3) A portion of an ABS or MBS that is fully guaranteed by a U.S. Government agency.
(4) A portion of an ABS or MBS that is fully and explicitly guaranteed as to
(5) The senior-most position of an ABS or MBS that is not fully guaranteed by a U.S. Government agency or fully and explicitly guaranteed as to the timely payment of principal and interest by a GSE, provided that the MBS satisfies the definition of “mortgage related security” in 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(41).
(6) An obligation of an international or multilateral development bank in which the U.S. is a voting member.
(7) Shares of a diversified investment fund, if its portfolio consists solely of securities that satisfy investments listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section.
(b) Farmer Mac may only purchase those eligible investments satisfying all of the following:
(1) At a minimum, at least one obligor of the investment has a very strong capacity to meet financial commitments for the life of the investment, even under severely adverse or stressful conditions, and generally presents a very low risk of default. Investments whose obligors are located outside the U.S., and whose obligor capacity to meet financial commitments is being relied upon to satisfy this requirement, must also be fully guaranteed by a U.S. Government agency.
(2) The investment must exhibit low credit risk and other risk characteristics consistent with the purpose or purposes for which it is held.
(3) The investment must be denominated in U.S. dollars.
(a) Farmer Mac may make a written request for our approval to purchase and hold other non-program investments that do not satisfy the requirements of § 652.20. Your request for our approval to purchase and hold other non-program investments at a minimum must:
(1) Describe the investment structure;
(2) Explain the purpose and objectives for making the investment; and
(3) Discuss the risk characteristics of the investment, including an analysis of the investment's impact to capital.
(b) We may impose written conditions in conjunction with our approval of your request to invest in other non-program investments.
(c) For purposes of applying the provisions of this subpart, except § 652.20, investments approved under this section are treated the same as eligible non-program investments unless our conditions of approval state otherwise.
(a)
(b)
(1) You may not use the investment to satisfy your § 652.40 liquidity requirement(s);
(2) The investment must continue to be included in your § 652.15 investment portfolio limit calculation; and
(3) You must develop a plan to reduce the investment's risk to you.
FCA retains the authority to require you to divest of any investment at any time for failure to comply with applicable regulations, for safety and soundness reasons, or failure to comply with written conditions of approval. The timeframe set by FCA for such required divestiture will consider the expected loss on the transaction (or transactions) and the effect on your financial condition and performance. FCA may also, on a case-by-case basis, determine that a particular non-program investment poses inappropriate risk, notwithstanding that it satisfies investment eligibility criteria or received prior approval from us. If so, we will notify you as to the proper treatment of the investment.
(c) * * *
In rule 2018-22163 beginning on page 53742 in the issue of Wednesday, October 24, 2018 make the following correction:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the State Route 82 (Little Prairie) swing span bridge across Schooner Bayou Canal (Old Intracoastal Waterway), mile 4.0, in Little Prairie Ridge, LA. The deviation is necessary to replace hydraulic piping, which will increase the reliability of the bridge's operation. This deviation allows the bridge four approved daylight openings four hours apart and to remain in the closed-to-navigation position at night.
This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on November 5, 2018, through 6 p.m. on November 17, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0407 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Donna Gagliano, Bridge Branch Office, Eighth District, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 504-671-2128, email
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LA-DOTD) has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the State Route 82 (Little Prairie) swing span bridge across Schooner Bayou Canal (Old Intracoastal Waterway), mile 4.0, at Little Prairie Ridge, LA to replace hydraulic piping that will improve the bridge's operation. The bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 6 feet above mean high water and 9 feet above low water, at the pivot pier, and a foot higher at the rest pier. The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.494. The bridge currently opens on signal for the passage of vessels, except that, from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. it requires at least four hours' notice. For an emergency, the draw will open on less than four hours' notice, and it will open on signal should a temporary surge in waterway traffic occur.
This temporary deviation allows the bridge to open on signal at four approved daylight openings four hours apart, at 6 a.m., 10 a.m., 2 p.m., and 6 p.m., and to otherwise remain in the closed-to-navigation position at night from 6 p.m. through 6 a.m. for a 13 day period from 6 a.m. on Monday, November 5, 2018, through 6 p.m. on Saturday, November 17, 2018. Navigation on the waterway consists of tugs with tows, fishing vessels and recreational craft. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies; however, an alternate route is available via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. The Coast Guard will also inform the waterway users of the changes in operating schedule for the bridge through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners so that vessel operators can arrange their
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the LaCrosse Railroad Drawbridge across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 699.8, at LaCrosse, Wisconsin. The deviation is necessary to facilitate repairs essential for the safe operation of the drawbridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for approximately four (4) hours weekdays.
This deviation is effective from 5 a.m. November 5, 2018 through 9 a.m. December 14, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0995 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Eric A. Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2378, email
Central Pacific Railway, the owner and operator of the LaCrosse Railroad Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 699.8, at LaCrosse, Wisconsin, requested a temporary deviation from the current operating schedule to make repairs essential for the safe operation of the drawbridge. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 21.9 feet above normal pool in the closed-to-navigation position. This drawbridge currently operates under 33 CFR 117.5. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position weekdays from 5 a.m. to 9 a.m. commencing on November 5, 2018 through December 14, 2018. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and recreational watercraft. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.
Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Upper Mississippi River. The Coast Guard will inform users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so the vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by this temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from drawbridge regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Stillwater Highway Bridge across the St. Croix River, mile 23.4, at Stillwater, Minnesota to facilitate required repair work while minimizing potential navigation impacts. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the winter season.
This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. November 1, 2018, through 11:59 p.m. April 27, 2019.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0996, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Eric A. Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2378, email
The Minnesota Department of Transportation requested a temporary deviation for the Stillwater Highway Drawbridge, across the St. Croix River, mile 23.4, at Stillwater, Minnesota to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the winter season, starting 12:01 a.m. on November 1, 2018 and ending 11:59 p.m. on April 27, 2018 in order to complete needed repairs. The Stillwater Highway Bridge currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.667(b). The Stillwater Highway Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 10.9 feet above normal pool in the closed-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial sightseeing/dinner cruise boats and recreational watercraft. Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in the operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of the Columbia River between river mile 142 and 143 in vicinity of Cascade Locks, Oregon. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by salvage operations of the tug DIANE. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Columbia River.
This rule is effective without actual notice from November 2, 2018 through November 16, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from October 27, 2018 through November 2, 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 LCDR Dixon Whitley, Waterways Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Portland, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 503-240-9319, 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 to do so would be impracticable and delayed promulgation may result in injury or damage to the maritime public and/or the marine environment on the Columbia River due to the safety hazards associated with associated pile driving, cofferdam installation, diving, and vessel recovery operations.
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 Columbia River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with pile driving, cofferdam installation, diving and vessel recovery operations will be a safety concern for anyone transiting between Columbia River Mile 142 and 143 in vicinity of Cascade Locks, Oregon. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while salvage operations are occurring.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 7 a.m. until 5 p.m. on October 27, 2018 through November 16, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters on the Columbia River between river mile 142 and 143. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while salvage operations are occurring. Due to the unpredictable and potentially dangerous nature of diving and vessel recovery operations it was determined that it is best to exclude vessel traffic around all vessels engaged in diving and vessel recovery operations. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
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, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission 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 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
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting less than 30 days that will prohibit vessel traffic to transit between Columbia River Mile 142 and 143 during diving and vessel recovery operations. 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 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)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact Derrick Barge DB 125 or tug RUTH via VHF-FM marine channel 14. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(c)
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Notification of interim procedure.
The patent laws provide for patent term adjustment in the event that the issuance of the patent is delayed due to certain enumerated administrative delays. The USPTO makes the patent term adjustment determination included on the patent by a computer program that uses the information recorded in the USPTO's Patent Application Locating and Monitoring (PALM) system. The USPTO will be modifying
Kery A. Fries, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone at (571) 272-7757, or by mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments-Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
The American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 or AIPA (Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501A-552 through 1501A-591 (1999)) amended 35 U.S.C. 154(b) to provide for patent term adjustment in the event that the issuance of the patent is delayed due to one or more of the enumerated administrative delays listed in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1). Under the patent term adjustment provisions of the AIPA, a patentee generally is entitled to patent term adjustment for the following reasons: (1) If the USPTO fails to take certain actions during the examination and issue process within specified time frames (35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A)); (2) if the USPTO fails to issue a patent within three years of the actual filing date of the application (35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)); and (3) for delays due to interference or derivation proceedings, secrecy orders, or successful appellate review (35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(C)).
The “regulations establishing the circumstances that constitute a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application” (35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(iii)) are set forth in 37 CFR 1.704. 37 CFR 1.704 provides for a reduction of any patent term adjustment if an information disclosure statement (1) is filed after a notice of allowance or after an initial reply by the applicant; or (2) is filed as a preliminary paper or paper after a decision by the Board or Federal court that requires the USPTO to issue a supplemental Office action.
37 CFR 1.704(d), however, provides that a paper containing only an information disclosure statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 will not be considered a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution (processing or examination) of the application under 37 CFR 1.704(c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9), or (c)(10) if the information disclosure statement is accompanied by one of the statements set forth in 37 CFR 1.704(d)(1)(i) or (d)(1)(ii) (a “safe harbor statement”). Similarly, 37 CFR 1.704(d) also provides that a request for continued examination in compliance with 37 CFR 1.114 containing only an information disclosure statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 will not be considered a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution (processing or examination) of the application under 37 CFR 1.704(c)(12) if the information disclosure statement included in request for continued examination is accompanied by a safe harbor statement. Thus, unless the information disclosure statement is accompanied by a safe harbor statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.704(d), 37 CFR 1.704 provides for a reduction of any patent term adjustment if an information disclosure statement (1) is filed after a notice of allowance or after an initial reply by the applicant; or (2) is filed as a preliminary paper or paper after a decision by the Board or Federal court that requires the USPTO to issue a supplemental Office action.
A proper safe harbor statement under 37 CFR 1.704(d) must state that each item of information contained in the information disclosure statement: (1) Was first cited in any communication from a patent office in a counterpart foreign or international application or from the USPTO, and this communication was not received by any individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) more than thirty days prior to the filing of the information disclosure statement (37 CFR 1.704(d)(1)(i)); or (2) is a communication that was issued by a patent office in a counterpart foreign or international application or by the USPTO, and this communication was not received by any individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) more than thirty days prior to the filing of the information disclosure statement (37 CFR 1.704(d)(1)(ii)).
The USPTO performs an automated calculation of how much patent term adjustment, if any, is due to a patentee using the information recorded in the USPTO's PALM system, except when a patentee requests reconsideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.705. See
Under the interim procedure, recalculation of patent term adjustment is requested by submitting a form in lieu of the request and fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.705(b). This form, “Request for Reconsideration of Patent Term Adjustment in View of Safe Harbor Statement Under 37 CFR 1.704(d)” (PTO/SB/134) will be available on the USPTO website at
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that, under 5 CFR 1320.3(h), Form PTO/SB/134 does not collect “information” within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The form must be filed within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.705(b), and the USPTO will not grant any request for recalculation of the patent term adjustment that is not timely filed. The time period set forth set forth in 37 CFR 1.705(b) may be extended under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
If the request for recalculation is not based solely on the USPTO's failure to recognize a timely filed, compliant safe harbor statement under 37 CFR 1.704(d), the patentee must file a request for reconsideration of the patent term adjustment indicated on the patent under 37 CFR 1.705(b) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.18(e). If a patentee files both form PTO/SB/134 and a request under 37 CFR 1.705(b) prior to the USPTO's recalculation of patent term adjustment, the USPTO will treat the papers as a request for reconsideration of the patent term adjustment indicated on the patent under 37 CFR 1.705(b) and charge the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.18(e).
While the USPTO's interim procedure waives the fee under 37 CFR 1.705(b)(1) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.18(e) to file the PTO/SB/134, it does not waive any extensions of time fees due under 37 CFR 1.705(b) and 1.136. In addition, it is noted that the fee specified in 37 CFR 1.18(e) is required for a request for reconsideration under 37 CFR 1.705, and the USPTO may only refund fees paid by mistake or in excess of that required (35 U.S.C. 42(d)). Thus, the interim procedure set forth in this document is not a basis for requesting a refund of the fee specified in 37 CFR 1.18(e) for any request for reconsideration under 37 CFR 1.705, including any previously filed request that was solely based on the USPTO's error in assessing a reduction to the amount of patent term adjustment under 37 CFR 1.704(c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9), (c)(10), or (c)(12) for the submission of an information disclosure statement that was accompanied by the statement under 37 CFR 1.704(d).
The Office of Petitions will manually review the request for recalculation of patent term adjustment filed under the interim procedure. Specifically, the Office of Petitions will review the accuracy of the patent term adjustment calculation in view of regulations 37 CFR 1.702 through 1.704 as part of the recalculation. Upon review by the Office of Petitions, the patentee will be given one opportunity to respond to the recalculation. The response must be filed by patentee within two months of the mail date of the recalculation. No extensions of time will be granted. If patentee responds to the recalculation by requesting changes to the recalculation not related to the safe harbor statement, patentee must comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.705(b)(1) and (2).
If patentee fails to respond to the recalculation and the USPTO's determination of the amount of recalculated patent term adjustment is different from that printed on the front of the patent, the USPTO will
Applicants who submit form PTO/SB/133 with an information disclosure statement will be considered to be making a proper safe harbor statement, and the filing will be reflected in the file record. Applicants may not alter the pre-printed text of form PTO/SB/133. The presentation to the USPTO (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) of any USPTO form with text identifying the form as a USPTO-generated form by a party, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, constitutes a certification under 37 CFR 11.18(b) that the existing text and any certifications or statements on the form have not been altered other than permitted by EFS-Web customization.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Extension of timeline for publication of a final rule.
This document announces the extension of the timeline for publication of the “Medicare and Medicaid Program; Revisions to Requirements for Discharge Planning for Hospitals, Critical Access Hospitals, and Home Health Agencies” final rule. We are issuing this document in accordance with section 1871(a)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act (the Act), which requires notice to be provided in the
This extension is effective on November 2, 2018.
Alpha-Banu Wilson, (410) 786-8687.
Section 1871(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to establish a regular timeline for the publication of a final rule based on the previous publication of a proposed rule or an interim final rule. Section 1871(a)(3)(B) of the Act allows the timeline for publishing Medicare final regulations to vary based on the complexity of the regulation, number and scope of comments received, and other related factors. The timeline for publishing the final regulation, however, cannot exceed 3 years from the date of publishing the proposed regulation unless there are exceptional circumstances. The Secretary may extend the initial targeted publication date of the final regulation, if the Secretary provides public notice including a brief explanation of the justification for the variation no later than the regulation's previously established proposed publication date.
After consultation with the Director of OMB, the Department, through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), published a notice in the
Section 1861(e)(1) through (9), section 1861(m), section 1861(mm), section 1861(o), section 1891, and section 1820(e) of the Act list the requirements that hospitals, home health agencies (HHAs), and critical access hospitals (CAHs) must meet to be eligible for Medicare and Medicaid participation. The Medicare Conditions of Participation (CoPs) and Conditions for Coverage (CfCs) set forth the federal health and safety standards that providers and suppliers must meet to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The purposes of these conditions are to protect patient health and safety and to ensure that quality care is furnished to all patients in Medicare and Medicaid-participating facilities. The statute also specifies that the Secretary may establish other requirements as necessary in the interest of the health and safety of patients.
On November 3, 2015, we published a proposed rule in the
This document announces an extension of the timeline for publication of the final rule based on the following exceptional circumstances, which we believe, justify such an extension. Based on both public comments received and stakeholder feedback, we have determined that there are significant policy issues that need to be resolved in order to address all of the issues raised by public comments to the proposed rule and to ensure appropriate coordination with other government agencies. Specifically, the development of the final rule requires collaboration with the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.
We, therefore, are not able to meet the 3-year timeline for publication of the final rule and are instead extending the timeline for publication of the final rule.
Our decision to extend the timeline for issuing a final rule that would update the CoPs should not be viewed as a diminution of the Department's commitment to timely and effective rulemaking in this area. We are committed to publishing a final rule that provides clear health and safety standards for hospitals, HHAs, and CAHs. At this time, we believe we can best achieve this balance by issuing this notification of continuation.
This document extends the timeline for publication of the final rule until November 3, 2019.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, on an emergency basis, a new information collection associated with Revision of Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; Petition of City of Richardson, Texas Order on Reconsideration II. This document is consistent with the Order on Reconsideration, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the
The amendments to 47 CFR 20.18(j)(4) and (5), published at 68 FR 2914, January 22, 2003, and redesignated as 47 CFR 20.18(m)(4) and (5) at 80 FR 11805, March 4, 2015, are effective November 2, 2018.
Nellie Foosaner, Attorney-Advisor, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-2925, or email:
A summary of the Order on Reconsideration (FCC 02-318) was published in the
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on January 27, 2003, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR 20.18(m)(4) and (m)(5), formerly 47 CFR 20.18(j)(4) and (j)(5).
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1031.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements an accountability measure (AM) for commercial Spanish mackerel in the northern zone of the Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ) through this temporary rule. NMFS has determined that the commercial quota for Spanish mackerel in the northern zone of the Atlantic EEZ will be reached by November 4, 2018. Therefore, NMFS closes the northern zone of the Atlantic EEZ to commercial harvest of Spanish mackerel on November 4, 2018. This closure is necessary to protect the Spanish mackerel resource in the Atlantic.
The closure is effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, on November 4, 2018, until 12:01 a.m., local time, on March 1, 2019.
Frank Helies, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish includes king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All weights described for Spanish mackerel in the Atlantic EEZ apply as either round or gutted weight.
On November 20, 2014, NMFS published a final rule in the
The northern zone for Atlantic Spanish mackerel extends in Federal waters off New York through North Carolina. The northern boundary of the northern zone extends from an intersection point off New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island at 41°18′16.249″ N lat., 71°54′28.477″ W long. and proceeds southeast to 37°22′32.75″ N lat. and the intersection point with the outward boundary of the EEZ. The southern boundary of the northern zone extends from the North Carolina and South Carolina state border, along a line extending in a direction of 135°34′55″ from true north beginning at 33°51′07.9″ N lat., 78°32′32.6″ W long. to the intersection point with the outward boundary of the EEZ.
Regulations at 50 CFR 622.388(d)(1)(i) require NMFS to close the commercial sector for Atlantic Spanish mackerel in the northern zone when the commercial quota for that zone 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 that the commercial quota of 662,670 lb (300,582 kg) for Atlantic Spanish mackerel in the northern zone will be reached by November 4, 2018. Accordingly, the commercial sector for Atlantic Spanish mackerel in the northern zone is closed effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, on November 4, 2018, through February 28, 2019, the end of the current fishing year.
During the commercial closure, a person on board a vessel that has been issued a valid Federal permit to harvest Atlantic Spanish mackerel may continue to retain this species in the northern zone under the recreational bag and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.382(a)(1)(iii) and (a)(2), as long as the recreational sector for Atlantic Spanish mackerel is open (50 CFR 622.384(e)(1)).
Also during the closure, Atlantic Spanish mackerel from the closed zone, including those harvested under the bag and possession limits, may not be purchased or sold. This prohibition does not apply to Atlantic Spanish mackerel from the closed zone that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to the closure and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor (50 CFR 622.384(e)(2)).
The RA for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Atlantic Spanish mackerel and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.8(b), 622.384(e)(2), and 622.388(d)(1)(i) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and opportunity for comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds good cause to waive the requirements 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 procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing the commercial quota and the associated AM has already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Additionally, allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect the Atlantic Spanish mackerel stock, because 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 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.
Temporary rule; General category October-November fishery for 2018; fishery reopening.
NMFS has determined that a reopening of the Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) General category fishery is warranted. This action is intended to provide a reasonable opportunity to harvest the full annual U.S. BFT quota without exceeding it, while maintaining an equitable distribution of fishing opportunities across time periods; help achieve optimum yield in the BFT fishery; and optimize the ability of all permit categories to harvest their full BFT quota allocations. This action applies to Atlantic tunas General category (commercial) permitted vessels and Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Charter/Headboat category permitted vessels with a commercial sale endorsement when fishing commercially for BFT.
Effective 12:30 a.m., local time, October 31, 2018, through 11:30 p.m., local time, November 2, 2018.
Uriah Forest-Bulley, 978-675-2154, or Sarah McLaughlin, 978-281-9260.
Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971
NMFS recently published a final rule (
As of October 26, 2018, reports show that the General category landed 101.6 mt before closing. This represents 80 percent of the adjusted October through November subquota of 127.2 mt. Based on early October landings rates, NMFS has determined that reopening the General category fishery for three days is appropriate given the amount of unused October through November subquota (
Therefore, the General category fishery will reopen at 12:30 a.m., October 31, 2018, and close at 11:30 p.m., November 2, 2018. The General category daily retention limit during this reopening remains the same as prior to closing: One large medium or giant BFT per vessel per day/trip. This action applies to those vessels permitted in the General category, as well as to those HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels with a commercial sale endorsement when fishing commercially for BFT. Retaining, possessing, or landing large medium or giant BFT by persons aboard vessels permitted in the General and HMS Charter/Headboat categories must cease at 11:30 p.m. local time on November 2, 2018.
The General category will reopen automatically on December 1, 2018, for the December 2018 subquota period at the default one-fish level. In December 2017, NMFS adjusted the General category base subquota for the December 2018 period to 10 mt (82 FR 60680, December 22, 2017), although this amount increased to 14.6 mt with finalization of the quota rule. Based on quota availability in the Reserve, NMFS may consider transferring additional quota to the December subquota period, as appropriate.
Fishermen may catch and release (or tag and release) BFT of all sizes, subject to the requirements of the catch-and-release and tag-and-release programs at § 635.26. All BFT that are released must be handled in a manner that will maximize their survival, and without removing the fish from the water, consistent with requirements at § 635.21(a)(1). For additional information on safe handling, see the “Careful Catch and Release” brochure available at
NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fishery closely. Dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. Late reporting by dealers compromises NMFS' ability to timely implement actions such as quota and retention limit adjustment, as well as closures, and may result in enforcement actions. Additionally, and separate from the dealer reporting requirement, General and HMS Charter/Headboat category vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing
Depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS may determine that additional adjustments are necessary to ensure available subquotas are not exceeded or to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas. If needed, subsequent adjustments will be published in the
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:
The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and
This action is being taken under § 635.27(a)(1), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 971
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; apportionment of reserves; request for comments.
NMFS apportions amounts of the non-specified reserve to the initial total allowable catch (ITAC) and total allowable catch (TAC) of Aleutian Islands (AI) Greenland turbot, Bering Sea (BS) sablefish, Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Alaska plaice, BSAI northern rockfish, BSAI “other flatfish,” BSAI shortraker rockfish, BSAI sculpins, BSAI skates, and Central and Western Aleutian Islands (CAI/WAI) blackspotted/rougheye rockfish in the BSAI management area. This action is necessary to allow the fisheries to continue operating. It is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the fishery management plan for the BSAI management area.
Effective November 1, 2018 through 2400 hrs, Alaska local time, December 31, 2018. Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., Alaska local time, November 16, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0108, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the (BSAI) exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2018 ITAC of AI Greenland turbot was established as 144 metric tons (mt), the 2018 ITAC of BS sablefish was established as 1,208 mt, the 2018 TAC of BSAI Alaska plaice was established as 16,100 mt, the 2018 ITAC of BSAI northern rockfish was established as 5,185 mt, the 2018 ITAC of BSAI “other flatfish” was established as 3,400 mt, the 2018 TAC of BSAI shortraker rockfish was established as 150 mt, the 2018 ITAC of BSAI sculpins was established as 4,250 mt, the 2018 ITAC of BSAI skates was established as 22,950 mt, and the 2018 TAC of CAI/WAI blackspotted/rougheye rockfish was established as 150 mt by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish of the BSAI (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018 and 83 FR 28169, June 18, 2018). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(3) the Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has reviewed the most current available data and finds that the ITACs for AI Greenland turbot, BS sablefish, BSAI Alaska plaice, BSAI northern rockfish, BSAI “other flatfish,” BSAI shortraker rockfish, BSAI sculpins, BSAI skates, and CAI/WAI blackspotted/rougheye rockfish need to be supplemented from the non-specified reserve to promote efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources in the BSAI and allow fishing operations to continue.
Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(b)(3), NMFS apportions from the non-specified reserve of groundfish 25 mt to AI Greenland turbot, 55 mt to BS sablefish, 1,460 mt to BSAI Alaska plaice ITAC, 700 mt to BSAI northern rockfish ITAC, 700 mt to BSAI “other flatfish” ITAC, 100 mt to BSAI shortraker rockfish ITAC, 750 mt to BSAI sculpins ITAC, 6,130 mt to BSAI skates ITAC, and 28 mt to the CAI/WAI blackspotted/rougheye rockfish TAC in the BSAI management area. These apportionments are consistent with § 679.20(b)(1)(i) and do not result in overfishing of any target species because the revised ITACs and TACs are equal to or less than the specifications of the acceptable biological catch in the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018).
The harvest specification for the 2018 ITACs and TACs included in the harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI are revised as follows: 169 mt for AI Greenland turbot, 1,263 mt for BS sablefish, 17,560 mt for BSAI Alaska plaice, 5,885 mt for BSAI northern rockfish, 4,100 mt for BSAI “other
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) and § 679.20(b)(3)(iii)(A) as such a 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 apportionment of the non-specified reserves of groundfish to the AI Greenland turbot, BS sablefish, BSAI Alaska plaice, BSAI northern rockfish, BSAI “other flatfish,” BSAI shortraker rockfish, BSAI sculpins, BSAI skates, and CAI/WAI blackspotted/rougheye rockfish in the BSAI. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet and processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of October 26, 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.
Under § 679.20(b)(3)(iii), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action (see
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the California Date Administrative Committee (Committee) to increase the assessment rate for the 2018-19 and subsequent crop years for California dates handled under Marketing Order 987. The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Comments must be received by December 3, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or internet:
Terry Vawter, Senior Marketing Specialist, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202)720-8938, or Email:
This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, proposes an amendment to regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 987, as amended (7 CFR part 987), regulating the handling of domestic dates produced or packed in Riverside County, California. Part 987, (referred to as the “Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of producers and producer-handlers operating within the area of production.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This proposed rule falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this proposed rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the Order now in effect, California date handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate would be applicable to all assessable dates for the 2018-19 crop year, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
The Order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate from $0.05 per hundredweight, the rate that was established for the 2016-17 and subsequent crop years, to $0.15 per hundredweight of dates handled for the 2018-19 and subsequent crop years. The proposed higher rate is necessary in order to provide sufficient funds to cover the 2018-19 anticipated expenses. As a result of three consecutive assessment decreases, a smaller crop, anticipated increases in the cost of the annual financial audit, and increased costs for dues and subscriptions, the Committee recommended an increased assessment rate. The 2018-19 crop is estimated to be approximately 29,000,000 pounds, down from 36,000,000 pounds for the 2017-18 crop year.
The Committee's operating reserve is low enough that an increase in the assessment rate is necessary to ensure that there are sufficient funds to pay for all the Committee's proposed expenses, while also ensuring that the Committee has an operating reserve to carry into the 2019-20 crop year.
The Committee met on June 28, 2018, and unanimously recommended increasing the assessment rate from the current $0.05 per hundredweight to $0.15 per hundredweight in order to maintain expenses at a level consistent with recent crop years' expenses, draw a portion of the expenses from the existing operating reserve, and provide a sufficient operating reserve to carry forward. The assessment rate increase, along with the funds from the reserve and other income, should provide sufficient funds to cover anticipated expenses.
The Committee estimates the 2018-19 domestic date crop to be 29,000,000 pounds (290,000 hundredweight), which, at the proposed $0.15 rate, should generate $43,500 in assessment income. Other income, which includes items such as interest income, is expected to be approximately $5,000. Combined with the anticipated $50,000 in beginning year operating reserve funds, the total funds available for the 2018-19 crop year are expected to be $98,500.
The Committee's expenses for the 2018-19 crop year are estimated at $83,740. The Committee's expenses are entirely operational, since it conducts its research and promotion programs through its sister organization, the California Date Commission, a California State marketing program. The major administrative expenses include $58,000 for salaries and $25,740 for office and Committee expenses such as rent, insurance, postage, website and email, utilities, meeting costs, and other miscellaneous administrative expenses.
The previous crop year's budget was $67,800, and budgeted expenses for salaries and for office and Committee expenses were $50,000 and $17,800, respectively. Increases in the cost of the annual audit, personnel, and in dues and subscriptions account for some of the increased expenses in the 2018-19 crop year.
The increased cost for the annual audit reflects the Committee's need to conduct a comprehensive, government-mandated “single-audit (Yellow Book audit).” Dues and subscriptions have increased due to the Committee's use of an import reporting subscription service, which provides detailed data on date imports.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by considering anticipated expenses, expected volume of dates handled, and the amount of funds available in the operating reserve. Income derived from handler assessments of $43,500 (290,000 hundredweight assessed at the proposed rate of $0.15), along with other income and funds from the Committee's operating reserve, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses of $83,790. Funds in the operating reserve (currently $50,000) would not exceed the average of the annual expenses of the preceding five years, as mandated by § 987.72(d).
The assessment rate proposed in this rule would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee would continue to meet prior to or during each crop year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's budget for subsequent crop years would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 70 date producers in the production area and 11 date handlers subject to regulation under the Order. The Small Business Administration defines small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000. (13 CFR 121.201)
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), data for the most-recently completed crop year (2017) shows that about 3.23 tons, or 6,460 pounds, of dates were produced per acre. The 2017 producer price published by NASS was $2,840 per ton. Thus, the value of date production per acre averaged about $9,173 (3.23 tons times $2,840 per ton). At that average price, a producer would have to farm nearly 82 acres to receive an annual income from dates of $750,000 ($750,000 divided by $9,173 per acre equals 81.76 acres). According to Committee staff, the majority of California date producers farm less than 81 acres during the 2017-18 crop year. Thus, it can be concluded that the majority of date producers could be considered small entities. Furthermore, based on a reported average price of $1.25 per pound for packaged dates handled, a handler would have to handle at least 6,000,000 pounds to have $7,500,000 in annual receipts (6,000,000 multiplied by $1.25 per pound). According to information from the Committee on handler utilization of dates, only three of the regulated handlers handled less than 6,000,000 pounds during the 2017-18 crop year. Thus, most of the handlers could be considered large entities.
This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2018-19 and subsequent crop years from $0.05 to $0.15 per hundredweight of dates handled. The Committee unanimously recommended 2018-19 expenditures of $83,790 and an assessment rate of $0.15 per hundredweight of dates, which is $0.10 higher than the 2016-17 rate currently in effect. The quantity of assessable dates for the 2018-19 crop year is estimated at 29,000,000 pounds (290,000 hundredweight). Thus, the proposed $0.15 rate should provide $43,500 in assessment income. Income derived from handler's assessments, funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, and other income should be adequate to cover expenses for the 2018-19 crop year.
The total expenditure recommended by the Committee for the 2018-19 crop year is $83,790, compared to $67,800 for the 2017-18 crop year. The Committee recommended a higher assessment rate because its operating reserve would otherwise be too small to fund program
The income generated from the proposed higher assessment rate applied to the estimated crop, combined with carry-in funds from the 2017-18 crop year and income from other sources, should be sufficient to cover anticipated 2018-19 expenses and to maintain a financial reserve within the limit specified by the Order.
Section 987.72(d) states that the Committee may maintain an operating monetary reserve not to exceed the average of one year's expenses incurred during the most recent five preceding crop years, except that an established reserve need not be reduced to conform to any recomputed average. The Committee estimated a $50,000 reserve carry-in for the 2018-19 crop year. It expects to utilize $35,290 of the reserve during the year, leaving a reserve of approximately $14,710 at the end of the 2018-19 crop year, which is within the limit specified in the Order.
The Committee reviewed and unanimously recommended 2018-19 crop year expenditures of $83,790. Prior to arriving at this budget, the Committee considered information from its Budget Subcommittee (Subcommittee), which met on June 7, 2018. The Subcommittee discussed alternative expenditure levels and assessment rates, including not changing the assessment rate or adjusting expenses. Ultimately, the Subcommittee and the Committee recommended an assessment rate of $0.15 per hundredweight of dates handled after considering several factors including the anticipated 2018-19 crop, the Committee's estimated 2018-19 reserve carry-in and other income, and its anticipated expenses.
A review of historical and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming crop year indicates that the producer price for the 2017-18 crop year was approximately $142.00 per hundredweight of dates. Utilizing that price, the estimated crop size, and the proposed assessment rate of $0.15 per hundredweight, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2018-19 crop year as a percentage of total producer revenue will be approximately 0.1 percent ($0.15 per hundredweight divided by $142 per hundredweight).
This proposed action would increase the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs would be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the Order. In addition, the Committee's and the Subcommittee's meetings were widely publicized throughout the California date industry. All interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and encouraged to participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the June 28, 2018, meeting was a public meeting, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and information collection impacts of this action on small businesses.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements would be necessary as a result of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This proposed rule would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California date handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
Dates, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 987 is proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after October 1, 2018, an assessment rate of $0.15 per hundredweight is established for dates produced or packed in Riverside County, California.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a petition for rulemaking (PRM) from Mr. Christopher S. Pugsley, Esq. (the petitioner), on behalf of Water Remediation Technology (WRT), LLC, dated July 3, 2018, requesting that the NRC amend its regulations regarding full-cost recovery of licensee fees. The petition was docketed by the NRC on August 2, 2018, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-170-7. The NRC is examining the issues raised in PRM-170-7 to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking. The NRC is not instituting a public comment period for this PRM as the staff anticipates considering the issues raised in the petition in the upcoming fiscal year 2019 proposed fee rule, and the public will have an opportunity to comment at that time.
The PRM is available on November 2, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0172 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this petition. You may obtain publicly-available information
•
•
•
Renu Suri, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0161, email:
Mr. Christopher S. Pugsley, Esq. (the petitioner) submitted this petition on behalf of WRT, requesting that the NRC amend its regulations to re-categorize licensees performing water treatment services from a full-cost recovery category to a category with a fixed annual fee.
The petitioner is requesting that the NRC revise parts 170 and 171 of title 10 of the
The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations to re-categorize WRT as a licensee that does not require full-cost recovery for fees billed to it during the life of its license under 10 CFR part 170, address consistency issues between 10 CFR parts 170 and 171 for small entities, and consider this rule change during the FY 2019 revision of the fee rule. The petitioner assists small community water systems with compliance with the uranium drinking water standard: “WRT's license operations are not intended to process source material for its commercial value thereby reducing the financial benefit to the licensee as compared to uranium recovery facilities that process ores primarily for their source material content.” The petitioner suggests that the NRC should further ease the financial burden on community water systems so that they may comply with the uranium drinking water standard. The petitioner also notes NRC actions that seem to agree with his recommendation.
The petitioner also requests additional conforming and related changes. The petitioner asserts that the NRC should consider addressing consistency issues between 10 CFR parts 170 and 171 fees for uranium water treatment licensees that are recognized by the NRC as small entities. The petitioner also requested that the NRC consider amending language under § 170.11 to extend the time within which a licensee may appeal the assessment of fees and apply for a fee exemption. The petitioner notes that NRC could approve the petition as an alternative to revising the NRC's fee recovery requirements during the next revision of the annual fee rule.
The NRC will examine the issues raised in PRM-170-7 to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is proposing to amend the existing Federal Home Loan Bank Housing Goals regulation. FHFA proposes to replace the existing four separate retrospective housing goals with a single prospective mortgage purchase housing goal as well as establish a separate small member participation housing goal. The proposed rule would also allow the Banks to request FHFA approval of alternative target levels for the proposed goals. Finally, FHFA is proposing to eliminate the existing $2.5 billion volume threshold that triggers the application of housing goals for each Bank.
Written comments must be received on or before January 31, 2019.
You may submit your comments, identified by regulatory information number (RIN) 2590-AA82, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ted Wartell, Manager, Housing & Community Investment, (202) 649-3157 or Ethan Handelman, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Housing and Community Investment, (202) 649-3264. These are not toll-free numbers. The telephone number for the Hearing Impaired is (800) 877-8339. The mailing address for each contact is: Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219.
FHFA invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rule and will consider all comments before issuing the final rule. FHFA will post for public inspection all comments received by the deadline without change, including any personal information you provide, such as your name, address, email address, and telephone number. All comments received will be available for examination by the public through the electronic rulemaking docket for this proposed rule located on the FHFA website at
The eleven Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks) are wholesale financial institutions organized under the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act).
As government-sponsored enterprises, the Banks have certain privileges under federal law, which allow them to borrow funds at spreads over the rates on U.S. Treasury securities of comparable maturity that are narrower than those available to corporate borrowers generally. The Banks pass along their funding advantage to their members and housing associates—and ultimately to consumers—by providing advances
FHFA's AMA regulation authorizes the Banks to acquire certain assets from their members and housing associates as a means of advancing their housing finance mission, and prescribes the parameters within which the Banks may do so.
FHFA's AMA regulation authorizes each Bank, at its discretion, to invest in assets that qualify as AMA subject to the requirements of the rule. Currently, each of the eleven Banks except the Atlanta Bank offers an AMA program to its members, albeit at varying levels. As of June 30, 2018, the System's total outstanding AMA mortgages were $57.3 billion and represented 5 percent of total System assets. In contrast, the System's outstanding advances, their primary business line, represented 65 percent of total assets. Outstanding mortgages relative to total assets at the Banks offering AMA programs to its members ranged from a high of 17 percent and 15 percent at the Indianapolis and Topeka Banks, respectively, to less than 2 percent at the New York and Dallas Banks. Further, as a point of comparison, in 2017 the Enterprises' mortgage purchases represented 62 percent of the secondary mortgage market comprising the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae), and the Banks, while the Banks' share represented less than 1 percent.
The two AMA programs that the Banks are currently offering to their members are the Mortgage Purchase Program (MPP) and the Mortgage Partnership Finance (MPF) program. The Banks generally acquire 15- to 30-year conventional conforming fixed-rate mortgage loans secured by 1- to 4-unit residential mortgages in addition to loans guaranteed or insured by a department or agency of the U.S. government.
The existing Bank housing goals regulation has been in effect since January 2011.
The existing Bank housing goals regulation provides that a Bank will be subject to the housing goals if its AMA mortgage purchases in a given year exceed a volume threshold of $2.5 billion. The regulation establishes three single-family owner-occupied purchase money mortgage goals and one single-family refinancing mortgage goal applicable to the Banks' purchases under their AMA programs. The goals for purchase money mortgages separately measure performance on purchase money mortgages for (1) low-income families, (2) families in low-income areas, and (3) very low-income families. The goal for refinancing mortgages measures performance on refinancing mortgages for low-income families. The levels of the housing goals are established retrospectively using Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data to calculate the percentage of single-family originations in the Bank's district that qualify for each of the housing goals.
Each year, FHFA determines whether any of the Banks have exceeded the volume threshold. For each Bank that has exceeded the volume threshold, FHFA determines the Bank's performance under the housing goals. FHFA evaluates performance by calculating the percentage share of a Bank's AMA mortgage purchases that qualify for each housing goal. A Bank meets a housing goal if its performance is equal to or greater than the level of the housing goal established by FHFA based on HMDA data for that year.
This proposed rule would replace the existing Bank housing goals with new, streamlined goals that reflect the Banks' unique mission while supporting affordable lending. The proposed rule would provide certainty for the Banks by informing them of the housing goal levels in advance and would provide clarity and flexibility for the Banks by consolidating multiple goals into a more straightforward measurement of performance. The proposed rule would also establish a new housing goal that would measure the extent to which smaller members are participating in AMA programs.
The proposed rule would revise the Bank housing goals regulation to remove the existing process for FHFA to establish the levels of the housing goals retrospectively based on HMDA data. The proposed rule would establish levels for each of the housing goals in advance, in the regulation itself. This would eliminate any uncertainty about the levels of the housing goals from year-to-year. The proposed rule would also allow the Banks to request FHFA approval of an alternative goal level. Finally, the proposed rule would eliminate the existing $2.5 billion volume threshold that triggers the application of housing goals for each Bank.
The proposed rule would revise the Bank housing goals regulation to remove the separate housing goals for home-purchase mortgages for low-income families, home-purchase mortgages for low-income areas, home-purchase mortgages for very low-income families, and refinancing mortgages for low-income families. The proposed rule would replace the four separate housing goals with a single, overall measurement of performance. This new housing goal would include each of the categories currently covered by the Bank housing goals, but it would not include separate targets for each category. The proposed rule would establish the prospective mortgage purchase housing goal target level at 20 percent of a Bank's AMA mortgage purchases.
The proposed rule would establish a separate goal for participation by smaller members in Bank AMA programs.
The proposed rule would establish the small member participation housing goal target level at 50 percent.
The proposed rule would establish a three-year phase-in for enforcement of the new housing goals.
The proposed rule would revise and simplify the criteria and requirements under which mortgages are either included or excluded from FHFA's measurement of a Bank's performance under the housing goals. The proposed rule would also revise the reporting requirements to reflect the new structure of the Bank housing goals.
The proposed rule would revise the Bank housing goals regulation to establish a specific annual target level for each housing goal. The proposed rule would also allow a Bank to request FHFA approval of a different target level for either of the new housing goals. The Bank would be required to submit its proposed target level for the housing goal to FHFA for review and approval. Finally, the proposed rule would also remove the volume threshold from the Bank housing goals regulation. The new housing goals would apply to each Bank every year.
Under the existing Bank housing goals regulation, FHFA establishes the target level for each of the housing goals retrospectively using data collected and maintained pursuant to HMDA. This data typically becomes publicly available in September of the following year, although in 2018 the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection released 2017 HMDA data in May, subject to possible revision.
A Bank meets a housing goal under the existing rule if its mortgage purchases that meet the counting requirements established in the rule, as a percentage of its overall AMA purchases, equals or exceeds the percentage originated in its district. For example, if 23 percent of mortgages originated in a Bank's district were for low-income borrowers, then the low-income share of the Bank's purchases must be 23 percent or greater.
Because the level of the housing goals is not known until after the end of the year being evaluated, it is more difficult for a Bank to assess its performance relative to the goal during the year. A Bank may therefore have more difficulty adjusting its activities based on its performance relative to the goals.
By setting the target levels for the housing goals in advance, the proposed rule would provide certainty for the Banks and would allow the Banks to monitor their own performance and, if necessary, take steps in advance to ensure that they meet the housing goals.
Under the existing Bank housing goals regulation, FHFA evaluates the feasibility of the target levels for the housing goals for a particular Bank after the fact. For each Bank that has exceeded the volume threshold in a year, FHFA determines whether the Bank met each housing goal. If FHFA determines that a Bank has not met one of the housing goals, FHFA will also determine whether achievement of the target level for the housing goal was feasible, taking into consideration any information provided by the Bank, along with market and economic conditions. While this process provides FHFA the ability to evaluate facts and circumstances for not meeting a goal that may weigh against adverse supervisory actions against the Banks, the Banks face uncertainty because the feasibility evaluation does not happen until FHFA makes its final determination on the Bank's performance, after the year being measured is over.
The proposed rule would address this uncertainty by setting a prospective goal, as described above, and by allowing a Bank to propose an alternate level for the housing goal. If a Bank's district, membership, or affordable housing needs do not fit the proposed goal and the Bank believes the goal is infeasible, the Bank would be able to propose an alternate level for FHFA review and approval. The Bank would be required to provide a justification for the alternate level by submitting any information it considers relevant to the feasibility of the proposed goal level. FHFA would review the Bank proposal to verify the Bank's showing of infeasibility, and to ensure: (1) That the proposed goal demonstrates a meaningful contribution to affordable housing, and (2) that the proposed goal would be feasible for the Bank's AMA program.
To illustrate, the proposed rule would establish target levels for each of the housing goals in advance. The target
The proposed rule would establish a three-year cycle for setting alternate target levels for the Bank housing goals. In other words, the Bank's proposal would cover the target levels for the housing goals for the next three years. For the initial three-year housing goals cycle, the Bank would submit its request by October 31, 2019. Under special circumstances that would trigger application of housing goals, such as starting a new AMA program, a Bank would have an opportunity to propose a goal alternative.
If FHFA approves an alternate target level for one or both of the housing goals for a Bank, the evaluation process would remain the same. At the end of the year, FHFA would evaluate the Bank based on the FHFA approved alternative target level and make its determination based on whether the Bank's performance met the approved target level for the housing goal or goals.
This new alternative process for setting the target levels of the housing goals would ensure that the target levels for the housing goals are feasible for each Bank, taking into account the particular programs and activities of the Bank.
Under the existing Bank housing goals regulation, a Bank is subject to the housing goals only if the total unpaid principal balance (UPB) of the Bank's purchases of AMA mortgages in a year exceeds $2.5 billion (the “volume threshold”). Since the 2010 housing goals rule became effective, there have been only three instances where a Bank exceeded the $2.5 billion annual volume threshold. The three instances were in 2015 (Indianapolis Bank) and in 2016 (Indianapolis Bank and Cincinnati Bank).
The proposed rule would eliminate the annual volume threshold for triggering the application of the housing goals. The housing goals would apply to each of the Banks each year, either at the target level established by FHFA in the housing goals regulation or a Bank-proposed alternative target level approved by FHFA.
The volume threshold was adopted to avoid adverse impact on Bank AMA programs, particularly programs focused on providing liquidity for smaller Bank members described at the time of adoption as being a relatively low level. Over time, however, the volume threshold has instead operated as an upper limit on Bank AMA programs. Banks below the volume threshold in effect avoid the housing goals, while Banks above the threshold face application of housing goals that AMA programs were not designed to, and typically did not, meet.
Housing goals will better serve their public purpose if they are flexible enough to be meaningful and achievable for a variety of Bank AMA programs. Instead of the housing goals being a simple binary on-or-off based on a volume threshold, the proposed rule offers a mechanism for goals to apply to all Banks in ways that fit their unique mission. The new process for setting the levels of the housing goals would accomplish the purpose of the volume threshold by allowing the Banks to propose meaningful and achievable target levels based on the nature of the AMA program at each Bank.
The proposed rule would retain existing provisions that allow FHFA to exercise discretion when events out of a Bank's control occur, such as unexpected market shifts or member mergers. It would also retain the feasibility review that FHFA would undertake before exercising remedies if a Bank did not meet either housing goal.
The proposed rule would replace the four housing goals in the existing Bank housing goals regulation with a prospective mortgage purchase housing goal. The new housing goal would include mortgage loans that met the criteria for any of the current housing goals. The proposed rule would establish the target level for the new goal in the regulation at 20 percent of each Bank's total purchases of AMA mortgages. The proposed rule would also limit the number of loans to higher-income borrowers that could be counted toward this goal. This new prospective mortgage purchase housing goal would encourage affordable home lending as part of safe, sound, and sustainable business growth for the Banks, while providing flexibility to the Banks in how they serve borrowers by working with members.
Under the existing Bank housing goals regulation, there are four separate housing goals. Three of the goals measure Bank purchases of AMA purchase money mortgages on owner-occupied, single-family housing. The current home purchase housing goals require a Bank to meet separate targets for mortgages for low-income families (
The categories of the current Bank housing goals are the same as the housing goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises). The Enterprise housing goals include the same single-family housing goals as the Bank housing goals, along with separate single-family subgoals and multifamily goals that are not included in the Bank housing goals. The separate categories for the individual single-family housing goals are established by statute for the Enterprises and are designed to encourage the Enterprises to target activity in each of the separately defined areas. Multiple housing goals targeting specific segments of the market are appropriate for the Enterprises, which are large institutions operating nationwide and are able to design products and programs to support many different segments of the mortgage market.
The Banks are smaller institutions with mortgage purchase programs that
The proposed rule would establish a prospective mortgage purchase housing goal, which would include all single-family, first lien AMA mortgages purchased by a Bank. Eligible mortgages meeting the income or geographic eligibility requirements for any of the current four housing goals would continue to be eligible under the proposed goal. This would include mortgages for low- or very low-income borrowers and mortgages for borrowers living in low-income areas.
The new housing goal would also include both purchase money mortgages and refinancing mortgages. This would include refinancing mortgages for low-income families, which currently count only for the separate low-income families refinancing goal. By combining the different categories into a single, overall goal the proposed rule would make refinancing mortgages for families of any income level who reside in low-income areas meet the counting requirements established by the rule.
The proposed rule would establish the target level for the new prospective mortgage purchase housing goal at 20 percent of the Bank's AMA mortgage purchases. In proposing a 20 percent target for the new housing goal, FHFA considered how the Banks would have performed under this new overall goal in recent years, the ability of the Banks to meet the new prospective mortgage purchase housing goal, as well as the needs of underserved borrowers.
The following Chart 1 shows a time series of each Bank's total percentage of loans meeting the prospective mortgage purchase housing goal over the period 2011-2017. Note that the tables and charts in this proposed rule mask the identity of individual Banks to maintain confidentiality of Bank data. The letters have been randomized for each table and chart (
In 2017, the combined housing goals performance for the Bank System as a whole (shown as SYS in Chart 1) would have reached 25 percent of all AMA mortgages. The performance of the individual Banks varies significantly. The variation in performance likely results from the volumes of AMA purchased by individual Banks, different focuses by different Banks, district-level differences in the housing markets, and that Banks under the $2.5 billion threshold are not motivated to meet the affordable housing goals. Note that for the three Banks at zero for some years, Chart 1 reflects that these Banks did not have active AMA programs in those years. The same three Banks are the only Banks that would have not met the proposed 20 percent housing goal target in 2017, which may be related to having more recent AMA program initiation.
Eight of the eleven Banks would have achieved the proposed housing goal level of 20 percent each year since 2011, though the performance for several Banks was very close to the 20 percent target in some years. The 20 percent housing goal level would be high enough to be meaningful for those Banks, while still being feasible for the Banks to achieve.
For the three Banks whose performance would have been below the 20 percent target level in 2017, it may be possible for the Banks to increase their performance. Alternatively, these Banks may elect to propose alternate target levels if the 20 percent target is infeasible based on the specific circumstances in their respective districts and under their existing AMA programs.
FHFA recognizes these challenges and has considered them in proposing a target level for the AMA home purchase housing goal of 20 percent. The proposed target level encourages the Banks to continue to make meaningful contributions to affordable housing, while recognizing the limited ability of the Banks to affect the overall housing market.
As discussed above, the proposed rule would combine each of the categories for the four current Bank housing goals into a single overall housing goal. These categories include mortgages on properties in low-income areas, which may include some mortgages for families with incomes above the low-income maximum of 80 percent of area median income. The proposed rule would include a limit on the extent to which a Bank could rely on mortgages for higher-income families in these areas to meet the new housing goal.
The proposed prospective mortgage purchase housing goal would include mortgages for families in low-income areas as one of the criteria for loans to be counted toward the new housing goal. The proposed rule remains unchanged from the current rule in that it would continue to define “families in low-income areas” to include (a) families in low-income census tracts regardless of family income, (b) moderate-income families in minority census tracts (
The definition of families in low-income areas is different from the other components included in the proposed housing goal because it can include mortgages for families with higher incomes. For properties located in low-income census tracts, each mortgage purchase would count toward a Bank's achievement of the housing goal, regardless of family income. For properties in minority census tracts and for properties in designated disaster areas, mortgage purchases would count if family income is lower than the area median income, which would include families with incomes between 80 percent and 100 percent of area median income.
As a result, it is possible for loans to higher-income households in low-income areas to count toward achievement of the housing goal. While the proposed rule would not exclude such mortgages for higher-income families from counting entirely, the proposed rule would limit the extent to which a Bank could rely on such loans as the primary means of meeting the housing goal. FHFA recognizes an unresolved tension between the need for homeownership investment in communities that have lacked consistent, large-scale homeownership investment, on one hand, and concern about the impact of an influx of higher-income households on existing residents, on the other hand.
HMDA data on mortgage lending overall suggest that lending to higher-income borrowers in low-income census tracts is already a growing segment. There is a rising trend from 2010 to 2016 of mortgages originated for borrowers with incomes greater than 120 percent of area median income in low-income census tracts. This reached a high of 33.4 percent of all borrowers in low-income census tracts in 2016, as Table 3 below shows:
To limit the extent to which a Bank can rely on mortgages for higher-income families in meeting the prospective mortgage purchase housing goal, the proposed rule would establish a cap on how much of the goal a Bank can satisfy with loans to borrowers above the low-income threshold (
Note that the proposed cap would not prohibit the Banks from purchasing mortgages for borrowers with incomes above 80 percent of AMI. Rather, it would simply limit the extent to which such mortgages could be counted toward achievement of the housing goals.
FHFA considered the similarities and differences between the Enterprises' mortgage purchases and the Banks' mortgage purchases when proposing Bank housing goals. Both the Enterprises and the Banks provide valuable sources of liquidity for the secondary mortgage market and support for affordable housing. Key differences, however, informed the goal structure and levels in this proposed rule.
The Enterprises are chartered to provide stability and liquidity in the secondary market for residential mortgages by purchasing and making commitments to purchase residential mortgages. The Banks, in contrast, operate AMA programs at their discretion. If a Bank believes housing goals are too onerous or require unacceptable risks, it may cease purchasing mortgages entirely.
The Banks' AMA purchases are so small compared to other secondary market participants that they do not shape the market in the way the Enterprises do. Combined Bank AMA purchases constituted only 1 percent of the total unpaid principal balance of secondary market activity comprising Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, and the Banks. The Enterprises together represented 62 percent. The Banks are therefore market-takers, not market-makers.
Additionally, unlike Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Banks hold in portfolio nearly all loans they purchase and must manage the related market risk exposure. While FHFA considers AMA mortgage loans a mission asset, it also advises each Bank's board of directors to establish prudential limits for the mortgage purchases. The combination of the AMA regulatory requirements, the fact that the Banks hold the loans in portfolio, and the fact that the decision to offer an AMA program to members is at a Bank's discretion (with FHFA approval) all contribute to the AMA programs being market-takers.
Goal levels reflect these differences. The Enterprises have different percentage benchmarks for each of their goals and subgoals. FHFA also compares Enterprise performance retrospectively to market levels. If an Enterprise meets either the benchmark or the market level in a particular year, FHFA determines that it has met the goal. These goals are appropriate for entities with a market position like the Enterprises. In contrast, the goal level for the Banks combines all of the eligible categories from the Enterprise goals and reflects the market niche the Banks occupy. It is difficult to compare the benchmark levels for the Enterprise goals to the proposed target level for the prospective Bank housing goal. The Enterprise housing goals measure performance in four separate categories. Table 4 below illustrates the benchmark levels from 2017 for the Enterprise housing goals (market levels are published in the 2018 Annual Housing Report).
The prospective Bank housing goal would combine these four categories into a single overall goal, but it is not possible to add the benchmark levels together because the categories measured by the Enterprise housing goals have significant overlap.
FHFA invites comment on all proposed changes related to the prospective mortgage purchase housing goal including but not limited to the following specific questions (please identify the question answered by the number assigned below):
1. Is a prospective mortgage purchase housing goal measured as a percentage of each Bank's AMA purchases the optimal way to meaningfully and achievably encourage affordable home mortgage purchases? If not, what other options would more likely result in attainment of that goal? Why?
2. Is 20 percent the appropriate level? Why or why not? Please provide quantitative analysis to support your position when possible.
3. Is a single percentage goal that includes purchase and refinance loans to low-income borrowers, very low-income borrowers, and families in low-income areas an appropriate mechanism? Why or why not?
4. Is the 25 percent cap on AMA mortgages to higher-income borrowers in low-income areas that count towards the goal the appropriate level? Why or why not? Please provide quantitative analysis to support your position when possible.
5. What changes could Banks make to their AMA products to encourage more purchases of affordable home mortgages if needed to meet a goal?
6. Should the Banks have an additional opportunity to propose a revision to the target level for either housing goal, either annually or at some other interval? Why or why not?
The proposed rule would establish a new small member participation housing goal that would require each Bank to ensure that a certain percentage of the members participating in the Bank's AMA programs are smaller members. The new small member participation housing goal would recognize that smaller lenders are well-positioned to reach borrowers with affordable housing needs.
Across the Bank System, a majority of the members participating in AMA programs are small with respect to asset size, but a majority of the number of AMA mortgages purchased by the Banks come from members with larger assets. In 2017, 87 percent of AMA users had total assets below $1.173 billion, the current threshold for community financial institutions. Those AMA users sold 57 percent of the total number of loans purchased by the Banks. Charts 2 and 3 below show the distribution of each Bank's AMA users by asset size
In proposing the new small member participation housing goal, FHFA considered that one of the benefits of Bank AMA programs is connecting members with the secondary mortgage market. This connection has the potential to particularly benefit borrowers in rural communities or places of persistent poverty where borrowers have less access to credit. Small institutions appear more likely to originate loans to low-income and very low-income households, as Table 5 below documents. It shows that in 2017, participating financial institutions (PFIs) above the community financial institutions asset cap produced 17 percent of their loans for low-income or very low-income borrowers, while PFIs that were also community financial institutions produced 21 percent.
The proposed small member participation housing goal would align with FHFA's policy position embodied in the AMA regulation, which considers the cooperative structure of the Banks and that the Banks, as government-sponsored enterprises, pass along their funding advantage to their members by providing financial services, including AMA programs. FHFA recognizes that adding new members to participate in AMA, especially smaller members with less staff capacity, requires active marketing and outreach with a long sales cycle. As individual AMA user participation may vary year-to-year, Banks would have to maintain outreach efforts to ensure that small member participation continues at or above the target level. Nevertheless, the investment of time and effort to bring new members to the program should pay off both in new lending to borrowers that may not otherwise receive access to credit and in safe and sound business growth for the Banks.
The existing Bank housing goals regulation does not include a goal specifically targeting smaller member participation in the Bank AMA programs. However, the Bank housing goals have long recognized the importance of smaller members for the Banks, and conversely, the importance of the Bank AMA programs for some smaller members. For example, the final rule establishing the Bank housing goals included a volume threshold in part “to avoid adverse impact on Bank AMA programs, particularly with respect to CFIs [community financial institutions].”
The proposed rule would establish for the first time a new housing goal for smaller member participation in Bank AMA programs. The new goal would encourage Banks to maintain a focus in their AMA programs on small members that are more likely to produce affordable home loans to low-income households. Small institutions often rely on their Bank membership for a connection to the secondary mortgage market. It is reasonable to require the Banks to deploy their federally supported funding-cost advantage for the benefit of small members that might otherwise have difficulty accessing national capital markets, rather than primarily to augment the financial results of large members that have no such difficulty.
The Banks already serve many small members, so the small member participation housing goal would encourage them to maintain that focus over time. FHFA anticipates that the working relationships between Banks and small members will result in ongoing purchases of mortgages to benefit borrowers in need of financing for affordable housing.
The proposed rule would establish the target level for the new small member participation housing goal as having at least 50 percent of “AMA users” be small members. The proposed rule would define “AMA user” to include any PFI that sells one or more AMA mortgage(s) to a Bank during the year being measured. The proposed rule would define the small member participation housing goal by incorporating the definition of “community financial institution” in the Bank membership regulation, which includes institutions with total assets below the community financial institution threshold, currently $1.173 billion.
In proposing a 50 percent target for the new small member participation housing goal, FHFA considered how the Banks would have performed under this goal in recent years and the ability of the Banks to meet the new goal.
In 2017, nine of the eleven Banks would have met the new small member participation housing goal as proposed, with most of the Banks being significantly over the proposed 50 percent goal level. Two of the eleven Banks would have fallen below the 50 percent goal level. The two Banks that would not have met the goal in 2017 are also noteworthy in that they had very few AMA users during 2017.
FHFA also retains its supervisory discretion if a percentage changed due to events outside of a Bank's control, such as a sudden drop in participation due to member mergers or failures.
FHFA invites comments on all aspects of the small member participation housing goal and specifically solicits comments on the following questions (please identify the question answered by the number assigned below):
7. Is the small member participation housing goal an effective way to encourage access to mortgage credit in rural communities or places of persistent poverty, or would other approaches be more effective?
8. Should FHFA consider an alternative level (other than the community financial institutions threshold, currently $1.173 billion) for defining “small member?”
9. Are there any issues that FHFA should consider related to the proposed 300 basis point growth rate under the small member participation housing goal? If so, please suggest and explain an alternative approach.
10. Is the 50 percent goal too low, considering that nine of the 11 Banks already meet it?
The proposed rule would establish a phase-in period for enforcement of the new housing goals. Although many Banks would be on track for immediate compliance based on their 2017 performance, FHFA acknowledges that it may take substantial effort for some Banks to comply. A phase-in period would help the Banks adjust to the
The existing Bank housing goals regulation sets forth procedures for how FHFA enforces the housing goals.
The proposed rule would modify these provisions to specify that not meeting a goal in the first or second year in which the new regulation is in effect will not result in the Director requiring a housing plan. During the first and second year, FHFA would monitor performance using existing AMA data collection, notify the Banks of its preliminary determination, and then make a final determination as described above, including determining whether the goal was feasible. FHFA would not, however, require a housing plan for not meeting a goal in the first or second year. The Banks should expect full implementation of the rule including the possibility of a housing plan if a Bank does not meet a housing goal in 2022.
The phase-in period would not limit the Director's remedies apart from imposition of a housing plan due to the housing goals, such as through supervisory criticism in the examination process, nor would it limit FHFA's discretion with respect to feasibility determinations.
The proposed rule would make a number of changes to provisions in the current Bank housing goals regulation that address which mortgages count for purposes of the housing goals. The proposed rule would revise the Bank housing goals regulation to: (a) Permit mortgages guaranteed or insured by a department or agency of the U.S. government to count for purposes of the Bank housing goals; (b) address the treatment of participations among different Banks under the Bank housing goals; and (c) remove provisions related to Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) mortgages and mortgages with unacceptable terms and conditions.
The proposed rule would revise the existing Bank housing goals regulation to allow mortgages guaranteed or insured by a department or agency of the U.S. government to count for purposes of the Bank housing goals.
The Enterprise housing goals are defined by statute to include only conventional loans,
Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Veterans Administration (VA), and Rural Housing Service (RHS) provide mortgage options that can help lower-income borrowers and borrowers in low-income areas achieve homeownership, for instance, with lower down payments. Some lenders—and particularly smaller lenders—may lack the economy of scale needed for efficiently participating in multiple secondary market options. Some depositories have dropped federally backed mortgages from their product lines, while nonbanks—which are generally ineligible to be members—originate an increasing share of this market.
The Banks acquire federally backed mortgages through products under both the MPF and MPP programs. Under the MPF program, the Banks acquire federally backed loans for their “MPF Government” and “MPF Government MBS” products. With “MPF Government,” the Bank serves as investor and holds the loans on its balance sheet. With “MPF Government MBS,” the Bank essentially serves as an aggregator, purchasing federally backed mortgages (MPF Government loans) and then issuing Ginnie Mae securities backed by the mortgages.
The Banks' purchases of federally backed mortgages have varied greatly. In 2017, the Bank System's purchases of federally backed loans represented 10 percent of total AMA loans (less than 8 percent measured by UPB), but the purchases by individual Banks ranged from 0 percent to 100 percent, as detailed in the Table 7 below:
The proposed rule would simplify the rules under which mortgages may be counted by including purchases of federally backed mortgages under AMA products. This approach would also complement FHFA's AMA regulation, provide better secondary market execution for many PFIs, and support the needs of underserved borrowers.
The current Bank housing goals regulation does not explicitly address the treatment of “participations.” A participation exists where two or more institutions each acquire a percentage interest in a mortgage. The proposed rule would incorporate existing FHFA guidance on the treatment of participations into the regulation.
FHFA has addressed the Bank housing goals treatment of participations under two different scenarios. Under the first scenario, a Bank would purchase a mortgage and later sell a participation interest in the mortgage to another Bank. FHFA addressed this scenario in the Supplementary Information to the 2010 final rule establishing the Bank housing goals. In this scenario, FHFA stated that “each mortgage will be assigned to the Bank that initially acquired the mortgage regardless of whether an interest in the mortgage was later sold to another Bank.”
Under a second scenario, two or more Banks would each purchase participation interests in the same mortgage simultaneously. FHFA has interpreted the existing Bank housing goals regulation to require that such transactions be counted on a
The current Bank housing goals regulation counts purchases of “HOEPA mortgages” and “mortgages with unacceptable terms and conditions” in the housing goals denominator, but makes them ineligible for the numerator.
FHFA has issued other guidance to the Banks covering purchases of mortgages with predatory features or accepting such mortgages as collateral for advances.
The proposed rule would also revise other provisions of the Bank housing goals regulation, as discussed below.
The proposed rule includes changes to definitions used in the current Bank housing goals regulation. The proposed rule would add new definitions of “AMA mortgage,” “AMA program,” “AMA user,” “CFI asset cap,” and “community financial institution or CFI,” and would revise the definitions of “dwelling unit,” “families in low-income areas,” “median income,” “metropolitan area,” “mortgage,” and
The current Bank housing goals regulation defines “AMA-approved mortgage” as a mortgage that meets the requirements of an AMA program, with cross-references to the Acquired Member Assets regulation (12 CFR part 1268) and the New Business Activities regulation (12 CFR part 1272). The proposed rule would replace the term “AMA-approved mortgage” with “AMA mortgage” as a technical, non-substantive change. “AMA mortgage” is more consistent with typical usage for the AMA program. In addition, because the proposed rule would define the term “AMA program” by cross-referencing the Acquired Member Assets regulation, it is not necessary to include additional cross-references in the proposed definition of “AMA mortgage.”
The current Bank housing goals regulation defines “Acquired Member Assets (AMA) program” as a program that authorizes a Bank to hold assets acquired from a member by a purchase or funding transaction subject to the requirements of parts 1268 (Acquired Member Assets) and 1272 (New Business Activities). At the time the current Bank housing goals regulation was adopted, the term “AMA program” was not a defined term in the Acquired Member Assets regulation. A definition for the term “AMA program” was added to the Acquired Member Assets regulation in 2016.
The proposed rule would add a new definition for the term “AMA user,” to mean any participating financial institution from which a Bank purchased at least one AMA mortgage during the year being measured.
The Acquired Member Assets regulation generally defines “participating financial institution” as a member or housing associate of a Bank that is authorized to sell, credit enhance, or service mortgage loans to or for a Bank through an AMA program. This definition includes all members that are authorized to sell mortgages through an AMA program, regardless of whether the member actually sells such a mortgage in any particular year. The proposed rule would define the term “AMA user” more narrowly than the definition of a participating financial institution. An “AMA user” would be defined as a participating financial institution from which the Bank purchased at least one AMA mortgage during the year being measured. The proposed new small member participation housing goal would be limited only to AMA users,
The proposed rule would add a new definition for the term “CFI asset cap.” The proposed rule would define the term “CFI asset cap” to have the same meaning as defined in the Bank membership regulation.
The new small member participation housing goal would measure the percentage of AMA users for a Bank with assets that are below the CFI asset cap. The proposed rule would define the term “CFI asset cap” by cross-referencing the existing definition in the Bank membership regulation.
The proposed rule would add a new definition for the term “community financial institution or CFI.” The proposed rule would define the term “community financial institution or CFI” to have the same meaning as defined in the Bank membership regulation.
The current Bank housing goals regulation defines “conforming mortgage” as a conventional, AMA-approved single-family mortgage with an original principal obligation that does not exceed the dollar limitation under the Acquired Member Assets regulation or under the Freddie Mac conforming loan limits. The Bank housing goals are already limited to purchases of mortgages under AMA programs, which include limits on the size of mortgages that can be purchased by a Bank. It is not necessary for the Bank housing goals to include a separate limit on the size of mortgages that may be counted for purposes of the Bank housing goals. The proposed rule would remove the definition of “conforming mortgage” from the Bank housing goals regulation as unnecessary.
The current Bank housing goals regulation defines “conventional mortgage” as any mortgage that does not include a guaranty, insurance or other obligation by the United States or any of its agencies or instrumentalities. The definition of “conventional mortgage” is included in the Bank housing goals regulation because the Bank housing goals are currently limited to conventional mortgages. The proposed rule would expand the coverage of the Bank housing goals to include all AMA mortgages, including both conventional mortgages and non-conventional mortgages. Because the proposed rule would no longer limit the Bank housing goals to conventional mortgages, the proposed rule would remove the definition of “conventional mortgage” from the Bank housing goals regulation as unnecessary.
The current Bank housing goals regulation defines “dwelling unit” to mean a room or unified combination of rooms intended for use, in whole or in part, as a dwelling by one or more persons, and includes a dwelling unit in a single-family property, multifamily property, or other residential or mixed-use property. In its 2015 final rule amending the Enterprise housing goals regulation, FHFA revised the analogous definition in the Enterprise housing goals regulation to exclude a combination of rooms without plumbing or kitchen facilities.
The current Bank housing goals regulation defines “families in low-income areas” to mean (1) any family that resides in a census tract or block numbering area in which the median income does not exceed 80 percent of the area median income; (2) any family with an income that does not exceed area median income that resides in a minority census tract; and (3) any family with an income that does not exceed area median income that resides in a designated disaster area. In its 2015 final rule amending the Enterprise housing goals regulation, FHFA amended the analogous provision in the Enterprise housing goals regulation (12 CFR 1282.1) by removing the reference to “block numbering areas” to conform to the terminology used by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The current Bank housing goals regulation defines “HMDA” as the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, as amended. The definition of “HMDA” is included in the current Bank housing goals regulation because the Bank housing goals are currently evaluated based on a retrospective market measurement calculated using HMDA data. The proposed rule would remove the retrospective market measurement from the Bank housing goals and instead establish goal levels prospectively in the regulation. Because the proposed rule would no longer include a market calculation based on HMDA data, the proposed rule would remove the definition of “HMDA” from the Bank housing goals regulation as unnecessary.
The current Bank housing goals regulation defines “HOEPA mortgage” as a mortgage covered by the definition of “high-cost mortgage” under the Truth in Lending Act. The definition of “HOEPA mortgage” is included in the current Bank housing goals regulation because the Bank housing goals do not allow HOEPA mortgages to be counted toward achievement of the Bank housing goals. The proposed rule would remove the provision excluding HOEPA mortgages from counting for purposes of the Bank housing goals. Therefore, the proposed rule would remove the definition of “HOEPA mortgages” from the Bank housing goals regulation as unnecessary.
The current Bank housing goals regulation defines “median income,” with respect to an area, as the unadjusted median family income for the area as determined by HUD. The current definition further provides that FHFA will provide the Banks annually with information specifying how the median family income estimates for metropolitan areas are to be applied for the purposes of determining median family income. FHFA's practice is to calculate the applicable median income figures for both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas and to provide the median income information to the Banks. The proposed rule would align the definition of “median income” with FHFA's practice, by revising it to mean, with respect to an area, the unadjusted median family income for the area as determined by FHFA. The proposed rule would also revise the definition to provide that FHFA will provide the Banks annually with information specifying how the median family income estimates for metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas are to be applied for purposes of determining median income.
The current Bank housing goals regulation defines “metropolitan area” as a metropolitan statistical area (MSA), or a portion of such an area, including Metropolitan Divisions, for which median family income estimates are determined by HUD. The regulation defines “non-metropolitan area” as a county, or a portion of a county, including those counties that comprise Micropolitan Statistical Areas, located outside any metropolitan area for which median family income estimates are published annually by HUD. The proposed rule would align the definition of “metropolitan area” with FHFA's practice by revising it to mean an MSA, or a portion of such an area, including Metropolitan Divisions, for which median incomes are determined by FHFA. The proposed rule would align the definition of “non-metropolitan area” with FHFA's practice by revising it to mean a county, or a portion of a county, including those counties that comprise Micropolitan Statistical Areas, located outside any metropolitan area, for which median incomes are determined by FHFA.
The current Bank housing goals regulation defines “HUD” as the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. The term “HUD” is used only in the definitions of “median income,” “metropolitan area,” and “non-metropolitan area” in the current Bank housing goals regulation. The proposed rule would revise those definitions to remove each reference to “HUD,” and the proposed rule would therefore remove the definition of “HUD” from the Bank housing goals regulation as unnecessary.
The current Bank housing goals regulation defines “mortgage” to include all loans secured by real estate and any interests in such mortgages. The current definition is based on the definition of “mortgage” in the Enterprise housing goals regulation and excludes chattel loans on manufactured housing. The proposed rule would revise the definition of “mortgage” in the Bank housing goals regulation to include chattel loans on manufactured housing. The AMA regulation allows the Banks to acquire chattel loans on manufactured housing. Adding such loans to the definition of “mortgage” in the Bank housing goals regulation would further align the coverage of the Bank housing goals with the AMA regulation and would make it easier for the Banks to assess their own housing goals performance during the year. Chattel mortgages on manufactured housing are a significant means by which lower-income households obtain housing, and are therefore appropriate to be included in the Bank housing goals calculation.
The current Bank housing goals regulation defines “mortgage with unacceptable terms or conditions” as a
The current Bank housing goals regulation defines “owner-occupied housing” as single-family housing in which a mortgagor resides, including two- to four-unit owner-occupied properties where one or more units are used for rental purposes. The definition of “owner-occupied housing” is included in the Bank housing goals regulation because the Bank housing goals are currently limited to mortgages on owner-occupied housing. The proposed rule would expand the coverage of the Bank housing goals to include all AMA mortgages, including mortgages on owner-occupied and investor-owned single-family properties. The proposed rule would not establish separate criteria for evaluating whether a mortgage on an investor-owned property could be counted for purposes of the housing goals. Any such mortgages would be evaluated based on the income of the mortgagor in the same manner as the evaluation of a mortgage on an owner-occupied property. Because the proposed rule would no longer limit the Bank housing goals to mortgages on owner-occupied housing, the proposed rule would remove the definition of “owner-occupied housing” from the Bank housing goals regulation as unnecessary.
The current Bank housing goals regulation defines “residential mortgage” as a mortgage on single-family housing. The term “residential mortgage” is not used anywhere else in the current Bank housing goals regulation, and the proposed rule would not include any use of the term either. The proposed rule would remove the definition of “residential mortgage” from the Bank housing goals regulation as unnecessary.
The current Bank housing goals regulation defines “second mortgage” as any mortgage that has a lien position subordinate only to the lien of the first mortgage. This term is used in § 1281.13(b)(8), which provides that “purchases of subordinate lien mortgages (second mortgages),” do not count for purposes of housing goals credit. The proposed rule would clarify that this prohibition would apply to all mortgages that are subordinate to the first mortgages, not only second mortgages. Because “second mortgage” would no longer appear in the regulation, this definition is unnecessary and would be removed.
The proposed rule would revise § 1281.10 to reflect the new housing goals that would be defined by the proposed rule.
The current regulation states that the subpart establishes three single-family housing goals for purchase money mortgages and one single-family housing goal for refinancing mortgages. The current regulation also states that the subpart establishes a volume threshold for the Bank housing goals.
The proposed rule would revise the structure of the Bank housing goals to remove the volume threshold and to replace the existing housing goals with a new prospective mortgage purchase housing goal and a new small member participation housing goal. The proposed rule would revise § 1281.10 to reflect these changes.
The proposed rule would revise § 1281.11 to define the new prospective mortgage purchase housing goal and small member participation housing goal, and would make conforming changes to § 1281.14.
The current regulation establishes three single-family housing goals for purchase money mortgages and one single-family housing goal for refinancing mortgages. The proposed rule would revise § 1281.11 in its entirety to replace the existing Bank housing goals with two new housing goals: a prospective mortgage purchase housing goal and a small member participation housing goal.
The current regulation establishes a volume threshold that a Bank must exceed before it is subject to the housing goals. The threshold is $2.5 billion in unpaid principal balance in a single year. The proposed rule would remove the volume threshold provision so that the new Bank housing goals would apply to each Bank regardless of the volume of AMA mortgages purchased by the Bank. The proposed rule would also make a conforming change to § 1281.14(a) by eliminating Bank volume thresholds as a consideration in determining whether the Director evaluates annual performance of Bank performance under each housing goal.
The current regulation establishes criteria for determining the target level for each goal based on HMDA data for the year being measured,
The proposed rule would define the small member participation housing goal as the percentage of AMA users with assets that do not exceed the CFI asset cap. The proposed rule would establish the target level for the small member participation housing goal as the lesser of 50 percent or 300 basis points greater than the percentage of the Bank's AMA users with assets that do not exceed the CFI cap from the preceding year.
The proposed rule would also establish a process for a Bank to propose a different target level for the prospective mortgage purchase housing goal, the small member participation housing goal, or both. The proposed rule would require that this Bank-specific housing goal proposal be submitted to FHFA by October 31, 2019, and by October 31 every third year thereafter, or at some other appropriate time as may be determined by FHFA, for example if a Bank, in the middle of a three-year cycle, resumes purchasing AMA mortgages under a dormant AMA program. The proposed rule would require that a Bank-specific housing goal proposal include proposed targets for each of the three years following the year in which the Bank's proposal is submitted, and that the proposal include a detailed explanation of (i) why the corresponding housing goal
The current Bank housing goals regulation defines the “numerator” and “denominator” used to calculate performance under the current housing goals. The new housing goals are clearly defined in the proposed rule. The proposed rule would delete paragraph (a) as unnecessary in light of the mortgage goal calculation standards reflected in proposed § 1281.11. The current Bank housing goals regulation also provides that mortgages with missing data or information necessary for counting would be included in the denominator when calculating a Bank's performance, but not in the numerator. This effectively penalizes a Bank's performance by treating mortgages with missing data or information as if they were loans that did not meet the applicable criteria. The proposed rule would remove paragraph (b)(1), so that mortgages with missing data or information would be disregarded for purposes of measuring a Bank's performance on the housing goals. Finally, paragraph (c), which provides that a mortgage may only count once towards achievement of a current housing goal even if it satisfies more than one goal, would be redesignated as paragraph (b) and revised to permit each mortgage to be counted only once toward achievement of the prospective mortgage purchase housing goal, even if it satisfies multiple criteria. The changes to this paragraph would be consistent with the revised structure of the prospective mortgage purchase housing goal established in proposed § 1281.11. The proposed rule would make conforming redesignations of paragraphs throughout the remainder of § 1281.12.
Paragraph (b) of § 1281.13 currently enumerates categories of transactions or activities that are not counted for purposes of the housing goals and are not included in the numerator or the denominator in calculating a Bank's housing goals performance. The proposed rule would amend this paragraph by removing the references to “numerator” and “denominator.” This language would be unnecessary in light of the simplified calculation methodology provided in proposed § 1281.11.
Paragraph (b)(1) currently excludes non-conventional single family mortgages from counting towards housing goals credit. The proposed rule would allow loans guaranteed or insured by a department or agency of the U.S. government to count towards housing goals credit for the prospective mortgage purchase housing goal. Paragraph (b)(1) would be revised to codify FHFA's current treatment of mortgage participation interests. The proposed rule would exclude participation interests in AMA mortgages that are purchased from another Bank, except where two or more Banks acquire a participation interest in the same mortgage simultaneously. The proposed rule would add new paragraph (e) to clarify that where two or more Banks acquire a participation interest in the same mortgage simultaneously, the mortgage would be counted on a
Paragraph (b)(8) would be revised to clarify that all mortgages which are subordinate to the first mortgage are excluded from counting for purposes of the Bank housing goals.
The proposed rule would amend § 1281.14(a) by removing the reference to the volume threshold, which would be moot in light of the threshold's elimination under proposed § 1281.11. The proposed rule would also amend § 1281.14(a) to require that FHFA publish the annual determination of compliance. The proposed rule would describe the data that would be included in the published determination.
The proposed rule would revise § 1281.15 to provide that the Director may only require that a Bank submit a housing plan for any year after 2021. This would reflect the phase-in period for the new housing goals, eliminating possibility of a housing plan during the first two years in which the proposed prospective and small member participation housing goals are operative. Because a Bank may be required to submit a housing plan while awaiting FHFA's response to a Bank-specific housing goal proposal, the proposed rule would amend § 1281.15 by adding new paragraph (b)(5) to require that the housing plan address any Bank-specific housing goals the Bank is proposing.
The proposed rule would revise Subpart C to simplify and clarify the reporting requirements for the Banks under the new housing goals.
The current Bank housing goals regulation sets out a number of specific reporting requirements for the Banks. Section 1281.20 of the current regulation describes the matters that are covered by Subpart C, “Reporting Requirements.” Section 1281.21 of the current regulation describes the reporting requirements including the required timing and format of the data to be submitted. Section 1281.22 of the current regulation permits FHFA to require additional reports, information, and data as it determines appropriate. Finally, § 1281.23 of the current regulation requires a senior officer of each Bank to certify the data submitted under the Bank housing goals regulation and allows FHFA to address errors, omissions or discrepancies in data reported by a Bank by adjusting the Bank's official housing goals performance figures and in certain circumstances increasing a Bank's housing goal in a later year.
The proposed rule would revise the reporting requirements in Subpart C to reflect the new housing goals structure and to eliminate provisions that are either duplicative of or potentially inconsistent with the existing Bank reporting requirements under FHFA's Data Reporting Manual (DRM). The DRM is issued by FHFA containing reporting requirements for the Banks and is amended from time to time. The DRM includes detailed requirements about the data elements that the Banks must report and the timing and format of the required reporting. The proposed rule would remove reporting requirements from the Bank housing goals regulation that are duplicative of and potentially inconsistent with the DRM.
The proposed rule would consolidate the four sections that currently exist in Subpart C of the Bank housing goals regulation into a single section. Sections 1281.21, 1281.22 and 1281.23 would be removed from the regulation. Section 1281.20 would include the new reporting requirements for the Bank housing goals regulation. As revised, § 1281.20(a) would require the Banks to submit to FHFA any data that FHFA determines to be necessary to evaluate transactions and activities under the Bank housing goals. Section 1281.20(b)
In addition to the above clarifications of the existing Bank reporting requirements, the proposed rule would also remove the provision in the current Bank housing goals regulation that addresses errors, omissions or discrepancies in the data reported by a Bank. This provision is unnecessary in light of FHFA's existing supervisory and regulatory authorities and procedures, and the proposed rule would remove the provision.
Finally, the proposed rule would remove the definition of “mortgage data” from § 1281.1. The current Bank housing goals regulation defines “mortgage data” as data obtained from the Banks under the Data Reporting Manual. The revisions to the reporting requirements in Subpart C would remove all references to the term “mortgage data.” The proposed rule would therefore remove the definition of “mortgage data” from the Bank housing goals regulation as unnecessary.
When promulgating regulations relating to the Banks, section 1313(f) of the Safety and Soundness Act requires the Director of FHFA to consider the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises with respect to the Banks' cooperative ownership structure; mission of providing liquidity to members; affordable housing and community development mission; capital structure; and joint and several liability. FHFA, in preparing this proposed rule, considered the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises as they relate to the above factors. FHFA also considered these differences in light of section 10C of the Bank Act, which requires that the Bank housing goals be consistent with the Enterprise housing goals, with consideration of the unique mission and ownership structure of the Banks.
The proposed rule would not contain any information collection requirement that would require the approval of OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Credit, Federal home loan banks, Housing, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the
12 U.S.C. 1430, 1430b, 1430c, 1431.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(1) Any family that resides in a census tract in which the median income does not exceed 80 percent of the area median income;
(a) A prospective mortgage purchase housing goal;
(b) A small member participation housing goal;
(a)
(1) 20 percent; or
(2) A percentage target approved under paragraph (d) of this section.
(b)
(c)
(1) 50 percent;
(2) A percentage that is three percentage points greater than the percentage of the Bank's AMA users with assets that do not exceed the CFI cap from the preceding year; or
(3) A percentage target approved under paragraph (d) of this section.
(d)
(2) A Bank's request under this paragraph must include a detailed explanation of:
(i) Why the goal in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, as applicable, is infeasible;
(ii) Why the Bank's proposed goal is achievable; and
(iii) How the Bank's proposed goal meaningfully furthers affordable housing mortgage lending in its district.
(3) A proposal under this paragraph may only be submitted once every three years, or under the circumstances described in paragraph (d)(4) of this section. The deadline for submitting a proposal under this section is October 31, 2019, and October 31 for every third year after 2019. FHFA will review each Bank proposal that is received by the deadline and will notify the Bank in writing if the Bank proposal is approved. If FHFA does not notify a Bank that its proposal is approved, the Bank will remain subject to the percentage goals in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, as applicable.
(4) FHFA may require a Bank to propose a target percentage for either or both housing goals to address discontinuation of an AMA program or approval of a new AMA program.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) The metropolitan area, if the residence that secures the mortgage is in a metropolitan area; and
(2) In all other areas, the county in which the property is located, except that where the State non-metropolitan median income is higher than the county's median income, the area is the State non-metropolitan area.
(d)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b)
(1) Purchases of participation interests in AMA mortgages from another Bank, except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section;
(8) Purchases of subordinate lien mortgages;
(e)
(a)
(a)
(b)
(1) Be feasible;
(2) Be sufficiently specific to enable the Director to monitor compliance periodically;
(3) Describe the specific actions that the Bank will take to achieve the housing goal for the next calendar year;
(4) Address any additional matters relevant to the housing plan as required, in writing, by the Director; and
(5) Address any Bank-specific housing goals the Bank is proposing.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Request for comments.
The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 directs the FAA to provide notice of, and an opportunity for, at least 60 days of public comment with respect to the regulations mandating that pilots operating civil helicopters under Visual Flight Rules use the New York North Shore Helicopter Route when operating along that area of Long Island, New York. The Act further states the FAA shall hold a public hearing in order to solicit feedback on the regulations from impacted communities. Such an opportunity will be provided and additional meeting information will be announced.
Written comments must be received on or before January 2, 2019.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0954 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For questions concerning this action, contact Sheri Edgett-Baron, Airspace Policy Group, Air Traffic Organization, AJV-11, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783; email:
In response to concerns from a large number of local residents regarding noise from helicopters operating over Long Island, the FAA issued the New York North Shore Helicopter Route final rule (77 FR 39911, July 6, 2012). The Rule, as set forth in subpart H of part 93 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, requires civil helicopter pilots operating under Visual Flight Rules (VFR), whose route of flight takes them over the north shore of Long Island between the Visual Point Lloyd Harbor (VPLYD) waypoint and Orient Point (VPOLT), to use the North Shore Helicopter Route, as published in the New York Helicopter Chart (“the
The Rule originally had a two-year duration and was set to terminate on August 6, 2014. The FAA limited the duration of the Rule because, at the time of promulgation, the FAA did not have data on the current rate of compliance with the voluntary route nor the circumstances surrounding an operator's decision not to use the route. The FAA concluded there would be no reason to retain the Rule if the FAA determined helicopter noise along the North Shore of Long Island did not improve. Accordingly, the Agency decided that the Rule would expire in two years, if it was determined there is no meaningful improvement in the effects of helicopter noise on quality of life or that the Rule was otherwise unjustified. Specifically, the FAA stated that should there be such an improvement, the FAA may, after appropriate notice and opportunity for comment, decide to make the Rule permanent. Likewise, should the FAA determine that reasonable modification could be made to the route to better address noise concerns (and any other relevant concerns), the FAA may choose to modify the Rule after notice and comment.
On June 23, 2014, the FAA issued a two-year extension of the Rule's termination date (79 FR 35488), and on July 25, 2016 the FAA issued a four-year extension of the Rule's termination date (81 FR 48323). The Rule is scheduled to expire on August 6, 2020.
As explained in the Rule, helicopters are generally limited in the distance they can prudently operate from shore without being equipped for overwater operations because they are not able to glide for any significant distance in the event of a total loss of power.
At the time of the original rulemaking, the FAA estimated that two-thirds of commercial helicopters operating along the north shore were equipped with multiple engines. This equipage allowed for a route to be established a little farther off shore than what would be prudent in an area where single-engine helicopters are predominantly operated; however, there are still significant safety implications with pushing all helicopter traffic farther over the water. Allowing helicopters to operate within sight of the coastline provides pilots with multiple visual waypoints by which to safely navigate along the north shore. The route was designed to avoid the potential safety implications associated with helicopters flying in VFR conditions off the coastline and the interaction with other traffic at or above the route's specified altitude.
The FAA is inviting comments that may assist the agency in assessing and understanding the impacts of the Rule and any potential implications of modifying the Rule. In particular, we invite responses to the following questions:
1. Did implementation of the Rule result in more or less helicopter noise in your community compared to levels you experienced prior to implementation of the Rule?
2. How and when do helicopter operators deviate from the Rule?
3. Are there alternative or supplemental routes that you believe will reduce the noise impacts without jeopardizing the safe operation of aircraft?
4. Should the Rule be extended, modified, or allowed to expire in 2020?
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notification of public meetings.
The FAA announces three public meetings to solicit feedback concerning the New York North Shore Helicopter Rule (“the Rule”). These meetings are being held pursuant to Section 182 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. The Rule requires civil helicopter pilots operating under Visual Flight Rules (VFR), whose route of flight takes them over the north shore of Long Island between the Visual Point Lloyd Harbor (VPLYD) waypoint and Orient Point (VPOLT), to use the North Shore Helicopter Route.
The public meetings will be held on November 13, November 14, and November 15, 2018.
The public meetings will be held at the following sites:
November 13, 2018, 7-9 p.m.—Cradle of Aviation Museum, Charles Lindbergh Blvd., Garden City, NY 11530.
November 14, 2018, 7-9 p.m.—Riverhead Middle School, 600 Harrison Avenue, Riverhead, NY 11901.
November 15, 2018, 7-9 p.m.—Vaughn College, 8601 23rd Ave, Flushing, NY 11369.
Christopher Bailey, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration; telephone (202) 267-4158; email
The purpose of the public meetings is for the FAA to obtain feedback relevant to the Rule at subpart H of part 93, which requires civil helicopter pilots operating under VFR, whose route of flight takes them over the north shore of Long Island between the VPLYD waypoint and VPOLT, to use the North Shore Helicopter Route. The FAA will consider comments made at the public meetings in its review of the Rule.
The meetings will use a workshop format. FAA will have several stations covering a number of relevant aspects of the Rule. Each station will be staffed by a representative of the FAA who is able to answer questions regarding that subject. There will also be a station where the public can submit a written statement or have their oral comment transcribed. No formal presentations will be made.
Section 182 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 also calls for a written comment period on the North Shore Helicopter Rule. See the document published elsewhere in this issue of the
Sign and oral interpretation can be made available at the meeting, as well
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; effective date change.
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) administers section 340B of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), which is referred to as the “340B Drug Pricing Program” or the “340B Program.” HRSA published a final rule on January 5, 2017, that set forth the calculation of the 340B ceiling price and application of civil monetary penalties.
On June 5, 2018, HRSA published a final rule that delayed the effective date of the 340B ceiling price and civil monetary rule until July 1, 2019, to allow a more deliberate process of considering alternative and supplemental regulatory provisions and to allow for sufficient time for additional rulemaking. After further consideration of the issue, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or Department) proposes to cease any further delay of the rule and change the effective date from July 1, 2019, to January 1, 2019.
Submit comments on or before November 23, 2018
You may submit comments, identified by the Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 0906-AB19, by any of the following methods. Please submit your comments in only one of these ways to minimize the receipt of duplicate submissions. The first is the preferred method.
•
•
•
CAPT Krista Pedley, Director, OPA, HSB, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 08W05A, Rockville, MD 20857, or by telephone at 301-594-4353.
HHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in June 2015 to implement civil monetary penalties (CMPs) for manufacturers who knowingly and intentionally charge a covered entity more than the ceiling price for a covered outpatient drug; to provide clarity regarding the requirement that manufacturers calculate the 340B ceiling price on a quarterly basis and how the ceiling price is to be calculated; and to establish the requirement that a manufacturer charge a $.01 (penny pricing policy) for drugs when the ceiling price calculation equals zero (80 FR 34583, (June 17, 2015)). The public comment period closed on August 17, 2015, and HRSA received 35 comments. After review of the initial comments, HHS reopened the comment period (81 FR 22960, (April 19, 2016)) to invite additional comments on the following areas of the NPRM: 340B ceiling price calculations that result in a ceiling price that equals zero (penny pricing); the methodology that manufacturers use when estimating the ceiling price for a new covered outpatient drug; and the definition of the “knowing and intentional” standard to be applied when assessing a CMP for manufacturers that overcharge a covered entity. The comment period closed May 19, 2016, and HHS received 72 comments.
On January 5, 2017, HHS published a final rule in the
HHS proposes to cease any further delay of the January 5, 2017 final rule and to change the effective date from July 1, 2019, to January 1, 2019. As the effective date will be the first day of the quarter, the implementation date and the effective date will be the same. In its most recent rulemaking delaying the effective date of the January 5, 2017 final rule, HHS stated that it “is developing new comprehensive policies to address the rising costs of prescription drugs. These policies will address drug pricing in government programs, such as Medicare Parts B & D, Medicaid, and the 340B Program. Due to the development of these comprehensive policies, we are delaying the effective date for the January 5, 2017, final rule to July 1, 2019.” (83 FR 25944)
The Department has determined that the finalization of the 340B ceiling price and civil monetary penalty rule will not interfere with the Department's development of these comprehensive policies. Accordingly, the Department no longer believes a delay in the effective date is necessary and is proposing to change the effective date of the rule from July 1, 2019, to January 1, 2019.
The provisions included in the January 5, 2017 final rule were subject to extensive public comment, and have been delayed several times. As such, HHS believes that it has considered the full range of comments on the substantive issues in the January 5, 2017 final rule.
HHS believes that finalization of this proposed change to the effective date of the January 5, 2017 final rule would satisfy its obligation to implement the statutory provisions enacted by Congress in 2010 to create civil monetary penalties.
HHS seeks public comments specifically regarding the impact of ceasing any further delay of the January 5, 2017 final rule, including any potential disruptions to implementation, and changing the effective date from July 1, 2019, to January 1, 2019.
HHS encourages all stakeholders to provide comment on this proposed rule. A comment period of 21 days is sufficient to provide affected parties the opportunity to provide their views as this rule is uncomplicated and simply
HHS has examined the effects of this proposed rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 8, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review as established in Executive Order 12866, emphasizing the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any 1 year, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year), and a “significant” regulatory action is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
HHS does not believe that the proposal to change the effective date of the January 5, 2017 final rule from July 1, 2019, to January 1, 2019, will have an economic impact of $100 million or more in any 1 year, and is therefore not designated as an “economically significant” proposed rule under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. The 340B Program as a whole creates significant savings for entities purchasing drugs through the program, with total purchases estimated to be $19 billion in CY 2017. This proposed rule to implement the January 5, 2017 proposed rule would codify current policy, some of which have been modified regarding calculation of the 340B ceiling price and manufacturer civil monetary penalties. HHS does not anticipate that the imposition of civil monetary penalties would result in significant economic impact.
When the 2017 Rule was finalized, it was described as not economically significant. Therefore, changing the effective date of the 2017 Rule is also not likely to have an economically significant impact.
Specifically, the RIA for the 2017 Rule stated that, “[. . .] manufacturers are required to ensure they do not overcharge covered entities, and a civil monetary penalty could result from overcharging if it met the standards in this final rule. HHS envisions using these penalties in rare situations. Since the Program's inception, issues related to overcharges have been resolved between a manufacturer and a covered entity and any issues have generally been due to technical errors in the calculation. For the penalties to be used as defined in the statute and in this [2017] rule, the manufacturer overcharge would have to be the result of a knowing and intentional act. Based on anecdotal information received from covered entities, HHS anticipates that this would occur very rarely if at all.” Since the civil penalties envisioned in the 2017 Rule were expected to be rare, changing the effective date of these civil penalties is unlikely to have an economically significant impact.
Executive Order 13771 (January 30, 2017) requires that the costs associated with significant new regulations “to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations.” This rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771 because this rule results in no more than
HHS is seeking specific comments on the potential financial and other impact on covered entities and manufacturers if the final rule were effective on January 1, 2019.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The proposed rule would affect drug manufacturers (North American Industry Classification System code 325412: Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing). The small business size standard for drug manufacturers is 750 employees. Approximately 600 drug manufacturers participate in the Program. While it is possible to estimate the impact of the proposed rule on the industry as a whole, the data necessary to project changes for specific manufacturers or groups of manufacturers were not available, as HRSA does not collect the information necessary to assess the size of an individual manufacturer that participates in the 340B Program. For purposes of the RFA, HHS considers all health care providers to be small entities either by virtue of meeting the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standard for a small business, or for being a nonprofit organization that is not dominant in its market. The current SBA size standard for health care providers ranges from annual receipts of $7 million to $35.5 million. As of January 1, 2017, over 12,000 covered entities participate in the 340B Program, which represent safety-net healthcare providers across the country. HHS has determined, and the Secretary certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small manufacturers; therefore, we are not preparing an analysis of impact for the purposes of this RFA. HHS estimates that the economic impact on small entities and small manufacturers will be minimal and less than 3 percent. HHS welcomes comments concerning the impact of this proposed rule on small manufacturers and small health care providers.
HHS also seeks comments on any impacts of affected parties to reduce by
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” In 2018, that threshold is approximately $150 million. HHS does not expect this rule to exceed the threshold.
HHS has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have “federalism implications.” This rule would not “have substantial direct effects on the 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.” The proposal to rescind the June 5, 2018 final rule and make the January 5, 2017 final rule effective as of January 1, 2019 would not adversely affect the following family elements: Family safety, family stability, marital commitment; parental rights in the education, nurture, and supervision of their children; family functioning, disposable income or poverty; or the behavior and personal responsibility of youth, as determined under Section 654(c) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999. HHS invites additional comments on the impact of this proposed rule from affected stakeholders.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that OMB approve all collections of information by a Federal agency from the public before they can be implemented. This proposed rule is projected to have no impact on current reporting and recordkeeping burden for manufacturers under the 340B Program. Changes proposed in this rule would result in no new reporting burdens. Comments are welcome on the accuracy of this statement.
Biologics, Business and industry, Diseases, Drugs, Health, Health care, Health facilities, Hospitals.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule.
The NMFS' Fisheries Finance Program (FFP or Program) proposes to revise the operating rules of the Program and set forth procedures, eligibility criteria, loan terms, and other requirements to add FFP financing to construct fishing vessels or reconstruct fishing vessels in limited access fisheries that are neither overfished or subject to overfishing. NMFS believes that this change will help preserve the economic benefits the nation derives from its commercial fishing fleets. Aging fishing vessels will need to be replaced. This will allow the FFP to play a small role in this process. Additionally, new fishing vessels will provide a safer environment for fishing crews and will be more fuel efficient. The rule provides for controls over the uses of replaced vessels that might otherwise contribute to additional harvesting efforts that could lead to overfishing. Currently, the Program provides loans to purchase, refurbish, or refinance fishing vessels, fish processing facilities, aquaculture facilities and individual fishing quota (IFQ) permits. The program also offers loans to community development quota (CDQ) groups to borrow for traditional loan purposes. NMFS also recently amended its regulations to add the purchase or refinancing of federally managed harvesting rights in limited access fisheries.
The comment period for this draft rule ends December 17, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0062, by any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Earl Bennett, NMFS, Fisheries Finance Program, 301-427-8765.
This proposed rule is also accessible at
Since 1997, the FFP has provided direct loans (loan guarantees prior to that) at 2 percentage points above the Treasury borrowing rate. All FFP vessel loans are collateralized by the fishing vessel, and often include additional collateral and/or guarantees. The creditworthiness of borrowers is also examined to ensure their ability to repay the loan. These provide a means of recovery in the event of a payment default. To date, less than one percent of borrowers have defaulted.
In 2016, Congress passed section 302 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 (the “Act”) (Pub. L. 114-120) which included specific authority for
This rule is being proposed because of concerns raised by commercial fisheries that private commercial markets improperly evaluate the risk associated with capital needs of the fishing industry, leading to shorter amortization periods and higher interest rates than would support the upfront investment required for new vessel construction. Current FFP regulations prohibit financing the cost of new vessel construction. There was a time when there were many open domestic fisheries. It was deemed important that the program would not add harvesting capacity to unregulated fisheries. Now NMFS is proposing to restrict new vessel construction to fisheries with a limited access system which is consistent with the goal to have sustainable fisheries.
This rule, if finalized, removes the prohibition on new vessel construction and reconstruction financing. The rule would also provide the same general loan requirements for new vessel construction that apply to all traditional loans. These changes would have no effect on currently allowed fisheries financing activities, including current traditional loans and the separately authorized Northwest halibut and sablefish quota share (HSQS), Bering Sea and Aleutian Island (BSAI) crab IFQ, and North Pacific CDQ loans except that it would also explicitly state that loans are restricted to fisheries that are subject to managed limited access systems that are neither overfished or subject to overfishing.
Other than specifically identified, this rule if implemented would not change any of the existing FFP regulations, requirements or procedures.
NMFS specially notes that in response to the industry's concerns, the FFP does take into consideration the value of permits, quota share or other harvesting rights associated with the project being financed. The value of harvesting rights will be taken into consideration when determining the adequacy of collateral.
The replacement of aged vessels in managed fisheries will result in the more efficient use of fisheries, promote safety at sea, and improve environmental operations of fishers. Furthermore, recapitalization and modernization of an over-aged fishing fleet goes hand-in-hand with effective fisheries management.
Based on current loan authority amounts, the rule change would provide the opportunity for a small number of fishers in federally managed limited access fisheries, setting total allowable catch limits, to modernize their operations by building new, replacement vessels, or rebuilding their current vessels. Loans will only be available for projects in fisheries that are in managed limited access systems that are not deemed to be overfished or subject to overfishing.
Even though fishing vessels can be replaced, without the benefit of FFP loans, the fishing industry cannot always find the feasible, long-term, fixed-rate financing necessary to make a replacement vessel economically viable. Smaller, one-vessel operators often have a hard time finding adequate financing. Variable interest rates increase the economic uncertainty of fishing operations that are already subject to variations in weather, prices, and total allowable catch. The availability of the FFP will provide some stability in one critical aspect of managing a fishing operation.
To ensure the FFP program does not contribute to over-fishing, loans provided for the construction or reconstruction of fishing vessels that increase capacity, not to be confused with increased harvesting, would be provided only where no affected species are overfished or subject to overfishing.
As is the current practice, the FFP will notify the fisheries Regional Administrators of a loan application to ensure that it meets the requirements of the fishery(ies) in which the new vessel will participate. Since the new vessel will replace an existing vessel, as explained below, and will fish under the old vessel's permits, all harvesting must be part of the fisheries management plan. The FFP would not provide financing if the fisheries management plan could not support the harvesting level, regardless of the increased fishing capacity of the new vessel, required for the applicant to be financially viable.
NMFS would implement the new vessel construction and reconstruction loans on the same equitable first come, first served basis based on individual qualifications as current loans. That is, the FFP would evaluate each vessel construction or reconstruction project on the basis of its ability, with present permits and entitlements and overall catch limitations, to repay the requested loan. This includes recent fluctuations in the conditions of the fisheries, prices, economics, useful life of the fishing vessel, and financial condition of the borrower. As a result, projections of total allowable catch over time are not useful for evaluating the financial viability of a certain project as it is too speculative. However, present catch limits do provide valuable perspective on the current financial condition of a prospective borrower. If the subject fishery becomes “deemed to be overfished” while the loan application is under consideration, the FFP would cease processing the loan at that point. Applicants need to be mindful that the current application fee of one half of one percent of the amount requested once paid, irrespective of why the Program denies a loan, statutory provisions limit refunds to fifty percent of the fee. The proposed revisions also clarify that NMFS only extends financing in managed fisheries under limited access systems.
This rule would also address the issue of what to do with the replaced vessels. While the replaced vessels may be old and in need of modernization, they may retain substantial market value. A borrower may choose from the following options:
(a) The replaced vessel will be scrapped,
(b) The vessel will continue to operate in a federally-managed fishery under limited access, or
(c) The federal fishery endorsement will be permanently cancelled and the vessel will be prohibited from fishing or providing support to fishing activities anywhere in the world; the vessel's title will also be marked to prohibit the vessel's transfer to any foreign flag. If the vessel were ever to cease operation in a federally-managed fishery under limited access or is sold, then option (c) would automatically apply.
The requirements under these options would have to be completed within four months of the loan closing(s). If the borrower selects option (c), at loan closing the borrower would authorize the Program and the United States Coast Guard to act on the borrower's behalf to have the fisheries endorsement revoked and have the vessel's title amended to prohibit a transfer to a foreign flag. In addition, failure to complete any of the tasks outlined in the options above would be considered an event of default under the loan.
Borrowers would be able to participate in new vessel construction financing in two basic ways: Direct construction financing, or “take-out” financing of private sector construction loans.
Finally, the Act now specifically allows vessels over 165 feet in length in Pacific Northwest fisheries to be considered for FFP loans. The cost of these vessels is likely to exceed $130 million each. Construction costs of vessels of 300 feet or greater length may exceed $170 million. The FFP authorized lending each year is presently $100 million and is limited by statute to a total outstanding principal balance of $850 million.
NMFS seeks comments on this proposed rule, particularly concerning the orderly implementation of the rule, the conditions placed on new vessel construction loans, and the reserve account requirements. NMFS is also interested in what time-frames should be expected for the construction of a new fishing vessel of less than 100 feet, or more than 100 feet? Should NMFS solely provide construction financing, or should it consider refinancing private sector construction debt? What are reasonable terms for shipyard performance bonds or insurance on vessel construction? How should the vessel surveyor or engineer, reporting to NMFS, be contracted? Should a replaced vessel be allowed to become a replacement vessel within the same federally managed fishery, a different federally managed fishery, or should it be scrapped altogether in order to qualify for the loan? Transfer to a non-regulated fishery would not be allowed.
Over the last 2 years, the average interest rate charged for FFP loans was 4.53 percent. NMFS also specifically seeks comments regarding the industry standard for interest charged for new vessel construction loans.
NMFS welcomes comments on these and any related questions regarding financing of new fishing vessels.
The general definitions at § 253.10 will revise the definition of “Project” to include construction of a new fishing vessel and adds definitions for “Vessel construction financing” and “limited access system.” Revisions to § 253.16 regarding actual cost, would redesignate and revise paragraph (d) to paragraph (e) and adds new paragraph (d) to provide the basis for determining the actual cost of vessel construction lending. Traditional loans at § 253.26 parts (a) and (b) are revised to include implementing guidance for new vessel construction. A new section, Vessel construction financing, is added as § 253.32 to provide requirements specific to new vessel construction financing. The new section § 253.33 is added to codify NMFS' policy that all financings shall require participation in managed fisheries with harvest limitation. Moreover, vessel construction and harvesting rights loan participation will be further restricted to federally managed limited access systems. NMFS also made minor changes to correct errors or improve readability that do not affect the substantive provisions of the rule.
This proposed rule is published under the authority of, and is consistent with, Chapter 537 of Title 46 of the United States Code and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended. The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Chapter 537 of Title 46 of the U.S. Code, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
In addition to public comment about the proposed rule's substance, NMFS also seeks public comment on any ambiguity or unnecessary complexity from the language used in this proposed rule.
NMFS has made a preliminary determination that this rule qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE G7 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, and we have identified no extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. NMFS is accepting comments and information during the public comment period for the proposed rule relevant to our preliminary categorical exclusion determination.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other relevant Federal rules.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601,
Participation in the FFP is entirely voluntary. This action imposes no mandatory requirements on any business. If finalized, this proposed rule would implement programs authorized by law. Specifically, this rule would create a new lending purpose authorized by the Act and would be implemented in accordance with 50 CFR part 253, subpart B. This action will create new § 253.32 and amend several other sections.
As defined by NMFS for RFA purposes, this rule may affect small fishing entities that have annual revenues of $11.0 million or less, including, but not limited to, vessel owners, vessel operators, individual fishermen, small corporations, and others engaged in commercial fishing activities regulated by NMFS. Borrowers under this authority may also include large businesses. Notably, because the FFP is a voluntary program that provides loans to qualified borrowers, non-borrowers—large or small—would not be regulated by this rule.
Although the FFP requires certain supporting documentation during the life of a loan, the requirements do not impose unusual burdens when compared to the burdens imposed by other lenders. Moreover, because the basic need for financing would continue to exist without the FFP, the individuals seeking financing would still need to comply with similar, if not identical, requirements imposed by another lender. Records required to participate in the FFP are usually within the normal records already maintained by fishermen. It should take no more than eight hours per application to meet these requirements.
The information required from borrowers, such as income tax returns, insurance policies, permits, licenses, etc., is already available to them. Depending on circumstances, the FFP may require other supporting documents, including financial statements, property descriptions, and other documents that can be acquired at reasonable cost if they are not already available.
FFP lending is a source of long-term, fixed rate capital financing and imposes no regulatory requirements on anyone other than those applying for loans. FFP borrowers make a voluntary decision to use the available lending.
These loan programs will only have positive impacts on borrowers. Because participation is voluntary and requires effort and the outlay of an application fee, borrowers for harvesting rights financing are assumed to have made a determination that using FFP financing provides a benefit, such that the FFP's long-term, fixed rate financing provides only a positive economic impact. Importantly, the FFP does not regulate or manage the affairs of its borrowers, and the regulations impose no additional compliance, operating or other fees or costs on small entities other than those that a financing relationship would require.
Because this rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
This proposed rule contains collection-of information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0648-0012 (loan application). The public reporting burden for the FFP financing is estimated to average no more than eight hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see
Aquaculture, Community development groups, Direct lending, Financial assistance, Fisheries, Fishing, Individual fishing quota.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 253 is proposed to be amended as follows:
46 U.S.C. 53701 and 16 U.S.C. 4101
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(1) The financing or refinancing of the construction of a new fishing vessel or the financing or refinancing of a fishery or aquaculture facility or the refurbishing or purchase of an existing vessel or facility, including, but not limited to, architectural, engineering, inspection, delivery, outfitting, and interest costs, as well as the cost of any consulting contract the Program requires;
(d) The actual cost of a vessel which is the subject of vessel construction financing shall be determined as follows:
(1) The initial actual cost shall be the estimated eligible costs of the construction; and
(2) The final actual cost shall be the total final documented eligible costs of the completed construction.
(e) The actual cost of any Project that includes any combination of items described in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d) of this section shall be the sum of such calculations.
(a)
(b)
(1) Projects may be financed, as well as refinanced.
(2) The Program may finance the construction cost of a Vessel or Facility
(3) The Program may finance the refurbishing cost of a Vessel or Facility or refinance the refurbishing cost of a Vessel or Facility that has already been financed (or otherwise paid) prior to the submission of a loan application.
(4) The Program may finance or refinance the purchase or refurbishment of any vessel or facility for which the Secretary has:
(i) Accelerated and/or paid outstanding debts or obligations;
(ii) Acquired; or
(iii) Sold at foreclosure.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Must be scrapped,
(2) Continues to operate in a federally-managed fishery under limited access, or
(3) Must have its federal fishery endorsement permanently cancelled and the vessel is permanently prohibited from fishing or providing support to fishing activities anywhere in the world; and the vessel's title is marked to prohibit the vessel's transfer to any foreign flag. If the vessel were ever to cease operation in a federally-managed fishery under limited access or is sold, then option (c) would automatically apply. This requirement must be completed within four (4) months from the closing of the financing. The borrower will authorize the Program and the United States Coast Guard Vessel Documentation Center to act on the borrower's behalf to make the vessel title changes if this requirement is not completed within the four (4) month requirement. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be an event of default under the loan.
(d)
(e)
(a) All financings shall require participation in managed fisheries with harvest limitations, and
(b) For vessel construction and harvesting rights loans, participation is further restricted to federally managed limited access systems that are not deemed to be overfished or subject to overfishing.
(c) The FFP will cease processing a loan application at any point during the process including at closing if the subject fishery is moved to an “overfished” or “subject to overfishing” category. Refunds of the application fee of one half of one percent of the amount requested once paid, irrespective of why the program denies a loan, are limited to 50 percent of the fee.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Idaho Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 12:00 p.m. (Mountain Time) Friday, December 7, 2018. The purpose of the meeting is to plan the implementation of the Committee's project on Native American voting rights.
The meeting will be held on Friday, December 7, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. MST Public Call Information:
Alejandro Ventura at
This meeting is available to the public through the number listed above. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Alejandro Ventura at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
Calsonic Kansei North America (CKNA) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Canton, Mississippi. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on October 25, 2018.
The applicant indicates that it will be submitting a separate application for FTZ designation at the CKNA facility under FTZ 158. The facility will be used to produce a variety of automotive parts and subassemblies for use in the automotive industry. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt CKNA from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below, CKNA would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to: Safety, warning, and identification labels; glove box dampers; rubber grommets, mounts and seals; air filters; steel hex screws; polypropylene+talc plastic fuse covers; steel brackets; air vents; motor fan housings; air conditioner (a/c) blower fans; a/c evaporators with seals; a/c heater cores with seals; catalytic converters; evaporator expansion valves; electronic body control modules; plastic switch retaining brackets; airbag electronic control units; bumper brackets; center console boxes; plastic switch brackets; plastic covers; cover instruments; air duct center vents; dashboard speaker covers; cup holders; plastic lids; hinge plastic covers; console removable liners; air filter covers; windshield defrost ducts;
The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Polypropylene+talc; blank labels; aluminum condensor seals; rubber radiator seals; vibration control rubber bumpers, mounting, and stoppers; steel flanges; zinc plated screw-taps; zinc plated bolts; steel screws; steel clips; steel brackets; flux cored wires; steel tubes; a/c blower fans; aluminum fan inserts; a/c blower fans with motors; air conditioner units; a/c amplifiers; connector liquid-tanks; heater cores with seals; evaporators; aluminum condensor pipe flanges; aluminum condensor header plates; condensor aluminum pipes; air filters; catalytic converters; steel catalytic converter housings; injection molds; muffler valves; evaporator expansion valves; electric fan motors; warning buzzers and speakers; radio units; antenna digital control modules; smart keyless antennae; air bag cut off indicators; capacitor-chips; resistors; printed circuit boards; instrument cluster switches; battery charging status warning indicators; audio control switches; manual a/c control units; automatic a/c control units; manual a/c controls; vehicle area network bridge controls; diodes; electronic frequency crystal-quartz; a/c controllers; body control module unit circuits; advanced driver assistance systems; electronic control unit occupant detection systems; integrated circuit-central processing units; airbag occupant electronic control units; sensors and diagnosis air bag service kits; air bag unit sensors; steering wire harnesses; a/c unit insulators; rear console finishers; instrument panel finishers; lid-fuse blocks; plastic instrument panel covers; door vents; a/c slide doors; steel radiator caps; aluminum radiator header plates; aluminum radiator core reinforcements; radiator with transmission oil coolers; aluminum radiator tubes; steel inlets and outlet diffuser exhaust tubes; flanges; steel insulators; steel exhaust pipes; aluminum condenser adapters; polypropulene+talc center duct adapters; steel boss oxygen exhaust manifolds; steel exhaust cap convertors; polypropulene+talc front cases; plastic air conditioner unit clips; stainless steel motor fan clips; zinc plated steel radiator support mounting collars; body control module connectors; ignition switch covers; connector covers; low density polyethylene duct aspirators; fan control modules; urethane foam grommet heater pipes; polyacetal hinge pins; nylon antenna holders; acrylonitrile ethylene styrene glove box lamp housings; automatic transmission controls; exhaust manifold steel joints; polycarbonate/acrylonitrile butadiene styrene and polyvinyl chloride instrument cluster skin lids; glove box lids; a/c motor/actuators; polypropulene+talc connector covers; acrylonitrile butadiene styrene switch covers; instrument clusters; polycarbonate/acrylonitrile butadiene styrene dashboard finishers; acrylonitrile butadiene styrene+polyethylene furanoate+polyvinyl chloride console panel covers; thermistor type power temperature coefficient circuit breakers; instrument cluster pointer supports; a/c unit soft vinyl drain tubes; transmission oil cooler adapters; transmission oil coolers; intake sensor with clips; ambient in car sensors; sun sensors, and electronic a/c fan controls (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 7%). The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to special duties under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232) and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable Section 232 and Section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is December 12, 2018.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Christopher Wedderburn at
Panasonic Eco Solutions Solar New York America (PESSNY) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Buffalo, New York. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on October 24, 2018.
PESSNY already has authority to produce crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) solar panels/modules within Subzone 23E. The current request would add a finished product (CSPV cells) to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific finished product described in the submitted notification and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt PESSNY from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components in the existing scope of authority used in export production of CSPV cells. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components (primarily silicon wafers and silver paste) in the existing scope of authority (duty rates range between duty-free and 5.8%), PESSNY would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to CSPV cells (duty free). PESSNY would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment. The request indicates that certain materials/components in the existing scope of authority are subject to special duties under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301),
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is December 12, 2018.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Diane Finver at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that, for the two companies subject to this review, Foshan Nanhai Jolyspring (Foshan Nanhai) is a part of the China-wide entity and Comfort Coil Technology Sdn. Bhd. (Comfort Coil) had no shipments during the period of review (POR), February 1, 2017, through January 31, 2018. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Christian Llinas, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202.482.4877.
On April 16, 2018, Commerce published in the
On July 11, 2018, Comfort Coil stated it had “no sales, exports, or entries of subject merchandise during the period of review.”
The merchandise subject to the order is uncovered innerspring units composed of a series of individual metal springs joined together in sizes corresponding to the sizes of adult mattresses (
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, please see the Preliminary Decision Memo. The Preliminary Decision Memo is a public document and is on file electronically
On July 11, 2018, Comfort Coil filed a no shipment certification, indicating that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. During the course of this review, Commerce examined this no shipments claim and provides its analysis in the Preliminary Decision
Because Foshan Nanhai did not respond to the questionnaire, Commerce preliminarily determines that Foshan Nanhai is not eligible for a separate rate and is a part of the China-wide entity. We are not conducting a review of the China-wide entity. Thus, the weighted-average dumping margin for the China-wide entity (234.51 percent)
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
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 within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues parties intend to discuss. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a date and time to be determined.
Unless extended, 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 and rebuttal briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
If we continue to find that Comfort Coil had no shipments during the period of review in the final results, Commerce will direct CBP to liquidate and assess antidumping duties on all entries made during the period of review claiming Comfort Coil as the exporter or producer in accordance with the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed period; (2) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to 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 duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. 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.
We are issuing and publishing these results 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; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Joshua Schiffman, M.D., University of Utah, 2000 Circle of Hope Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 has applied in due form for a permit to import, export, and receive marine mammal parts for scientific research.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before December 3, 2018.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Shasta McClenahan or Jennifer Skidmore, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant proposes to import, export, and receive biological samples from up to 100 cetaceans and 100 pinnipeds, excluding walrus, annually for scientific research to study the mechanisms of cancer resistance in marine mammals. The requested duration of the permit is 5 years.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Fishery Monitoring Advisory Committee Subgroup will meet on November 19, 2018.
The meeting will be held on Monday, November 19, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., Pacific Standard Time.
The meeting will be held at the International Pacific Halibut Commission Offices, 2320 West Commodore Way, Seattle, WA 98199. Teleconference number: (877) 733-2599, Conference ID: 282264.
Elizabeth Figus, Council staff; telephone: (907)-271-2801.
The agenda will include: drafting additional recommendations for how to potentially lower costs and increase observer coverage rates in the partial coverage category while maintaining the data sufficient for managing the fisheries; randomized deployment; and, cost equity considerations among participants. This may include providing input of differential deployment base levels by gear type.
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted either electronically to Elizabeth Figus, Council staff:
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Michelle Shero, Ph.D., 266 Woods Hole Road, Woods Hole, MA 02543, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on Weddell seals (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before December 3, 2018.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Sara Young or Carrie Hubard, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
Research activities will take place between October 1 and March 31 for the five austral summer seasons. Each season will encompass two sampling periods: one during the lactation period (October to November) and one at the end of the molt (January to March). During the first period, up to 25 adult females will be given a health exam and dive recorders/transmitters will be recovered from females handled the previous molt period. At the end of the molt, up to 25 adult females will undergo a health and pregnancy status assessment and will be outfitted with a satellite-relay dive recorder. Unmanned aircraft system surveys will be used for photogrammetry of handled animals, as well as unhandled seals in larger area surveys. Up to 500 crabeater seals (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Electronic Monitoring Committee will meet November 19, 2018 through November 20, 2018.
The meeting will be held on Monday, November 19, 2018, from 12 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and on Tuesday, November 20, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (or as necessary), Pacific Standard Time.
Elizabeth Figus, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted either electronically to Elizabeth Figus, Council staff:
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 57 Assessment Webinar III for Caribbean spiny lobster.
The SEDAR 57 stock assessment process for Caribbean spiny lobster will consist of a Data Workshop, a series of data and assessment webinars, and a Review Workshop. See
The SEDAR 57 Assessment Webinar III will be held Monday, November 19, 2018, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see
SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405.
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the Data Webinar, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.
2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Advisory Panel will hold a public meeting via webinar, jointly with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Advisory Panel.
The meeting will be held on Monday, November 19, 2018, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. See
The meeting will take place over webinar, which can be accessed at
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Advisory Panel, together with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Advisory Panel, will meet on Monday, November 19, 2018 (see
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Working Group of the Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel (NTAP) of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council will hold a public meeting.
The meeting will be held on Monday, November 19, beginning at 10 a.m. and conclude by 4 p.m. For agenda details, see
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The purpose of this Working Group meeting is to: (1) Review the status of the wingspread performance analyses and gear performance (door) evaluations, (2) discuss the twin trawl survey design and door testing with considerations given to species of interest, timing, experimental design and analyses, (3) discuss other business and next steps for the NTAP.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Addition to and deletions from the Procurement List.
This action adds a product to the Procurement List that will be furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 5/25/2018 (83 FR 102), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of a qualified nonprofit agency to provide the product and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the product listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will furnish the product to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing a small entity to furnish the product to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product is added to the Procurement List:
On 9/28/2018 (83 FR 189), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-
Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products and services previously furnished by such agencies.
Comments must be received on or before: December 2, 2018.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products and service listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following products and service are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 2, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Commander, United States Transportation Command. ATTN: Mr. Thomas E Thompson, (J4-PI), USTRANSCOM-J4, 508 Scott Dr., AFB IL, 62225-1437, (618) 220-4804.
To U.S. Customs and Border Protection Declaration for personal property shipments, re-weigh of personal property, shipment evaluation and inspection reports, receipt for unaccompanied baggage, mobile home inspection record, temporary commercial storage at Government expense, accessorial services-mobile home, report of contractor services, and claims for loss and damage; to manifest individuals and personal property being transported in the Defense Travel System (DTS); to provide emergency contact information to the designated authorized carrier under DoD contract and DoD authorizing activity, emergency contact information in the event of an emergency; to disclose information to other Federal agencies in order to manage an optimize DoD transportation resources, and to provide customs, immigration, and transportation security screening; to the designated authorized carrier under DoD contract and DoD authorizing activity, emergency contact information in the event of an emergency; to the Department of State to locate individuals in the DTS; to General Service Administration and Defense Government Accounting Activities for processing government Bills of Lading, and post-payment audits as required.
The Tender of Service is the contractual agreement between the DOD and the Transportation Service Provider (TSP), under which the TSP agrees to provide services in accordance with the conditions cited in the Tender of Service. In accordance with the provisions of DOD 4500.9-R, the DD Form 619 is used by the household goods TSP industry to itemize accessorial services and other charges for billing purposes on household goods and unaccompanied baggage shipments.
Army & Air Force Exchange Service (Exchange), DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 2, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Army & Air Force Exchange Service, Office of the General Counsel, Compliance Division, ATTN: Teresa Schreurs, 3911 South Walton Walker Blvd., Dallas, TX 75236-1598 or call the Exchange Compliance Division at 800-967-6067.
Respondents are Exchange employees, family members, and dependents that are authorized to make Exchange government travel. The completed forms are necessary to obtain this authorization and to provide the employee and their dependents with assistance to obtain visas, passports, security clearances and other travel documents as required.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 2, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Department of the Army, Office of the Provost Marshal General, Law Enforcement Division, ATTN: Jason L. Hood, 2800 Army, Pentagon, DC, 20301-2800 or call Law Enforcement Division, at 703-614-6461.
Respondents are sex offenders required to register with the state and live, work or go to school on an Army Installation. The information collected is used by Army law enforcement and the Garrison Commander to ensure the sex offender is compliant with any specific court ordered restrictions on Army installations. Data from members of the public is collected only by Army Law Enforcement authorized personnel. The frequency of sex offender registration with the Provost Marshall Office (PMO) is not under the control of any Army Law Enforcement personnel, it is the responsibility of the sex offender who lives or works on the Army installations to follow Army policy and report to the PMO within 3 working days of assignment to the installation. Sex Offenders could live or work on an Army installation and live in government housing near schools or daycare without Army Law Enforcement's knowledge. Army Law Enforcement would be less able to complete its mission to provide security and law enforcement to safeguard personnel living and working on Army installations.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 2, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Reserve Integration, 1500 Defense Pentagon, Washington DC, 20301 ATTN: Colonel Jamar Scott, Director Civil Military Policy, or call 703.571.3188.
Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.
Notice; amendment.
On October 17, 2018, we published in the
Please email
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
On October 17, 2018, we published in the
In FR Doc. 2018-22646, we make the following amendments:
(a) On page 52427 in the first column, under the heading
(b) On page 52427 in the first column, under the heading
(c) On page 52427 in the first column, under the heading
(d) On page 52435 in the second column, under the heading Electronic Submission of Applications, we are revising the sentence following the first
34 CFR 668.164(d)(3); 20 U.S.C. 1018.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Environmental Management, Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of revision of boundary locations at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Kentucky.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Energy, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, prohibits the unauthorized entry and the unauthorized introduction of weapons or dangerous materials into or upon the facilities of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, located in McCracken County, Kentucky, of the United States Department of Energy. The facilities are described in this notice.
This action is effective on November 2, 2018.
Robert E. Edwards, III, Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office Manager, 1017 Majestic Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, KY 40513, Telephone: (859) 219-4000, Facsimile: (859) 219-4099.
George Hellstrom, Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office Lead Counsel, 2017 Majestic Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, KY 40513, Telephone: (859) 219-4000, Facsimile: (859) 219-4009.
Public notice of the section 229 boundary of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant was initially made in the
Pursuant to section 229 of the Atomic Energy Act, as implemented by DOE regulations at 10 CFR part 860 (28 FR 8400, Aug. 26, 1963), the amendment by substitution of the following description language for the entirety of the former descriptions are made. DOE regulations prohibit the unauthorized entry (10 CFR 860.3) and the unauthorized introduction of weapons or dangerous materials (10 CFR 860.4) into or upon the facilities.
1. The DOE installation known as the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant located in McCracken County, KY, approximately 6,000 feet North of Woodville Road (State Route 725) and approximately 6,300 feet West of Metropolis Lake Road. The primary security interest area, including a buffer area, totals approximately 1,223 acres with boundary coordinates as follows:
2. The DOE landfill installation located North of Item 1 above and consisting of approximately 106 acres with boundary coordinates as follows:
This revised boundary replaces the property description contained in the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-546 (Certificated Rate Filings: Gas Pipeline Rates).
Comments on the collection of information are due January 2, 2019.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC19-3-000) by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
• Ensure adequate customer protections under NGA section 4(f);
• Review rate and tariff changes filed under NGA section 7(c) for certification of natural gas pipeline transportation and storage services;
• Provide general industry oversight; and
• Supplement documentation during the pipeline audits process.
Failure to collect this information would prevent the Commission from monitoring and evaluating transactions and operations of jurisdictional pipelines and performing its regulatory functions.
Electrical Engineer (Occupation Code: 17-2071; $66.90/hour)
Management Analyst (Occupation Code: 13-1111; $63.32/hour)
Accounting (Occupation Code: 13-2011; $56.59/hours)
Computer and Mathematical (Occupation Code: 15-0000; $63.25/hour)
Legal (Occupation Code: 23-0000; $143.68/hour)
The average hourly cost (salary plus benefits) is calculated weighting each of the previously mentioned wage categories as follows: $66.90/hour (0.4) + $63.32/hour (0.2) + $56.59/hour (0.1) + $63.25/hour (0.1) + $143.68/hour (0.2) = $80.14/hour. The Commission rounds this figure to $80/hour.
The Commission is revising the burden hours per response for rate and tariff changes associated with certificate applications, from the current estimated averages of 40 hours per pipeline certificate project and 350 hours per storage application, to an overall average of 500 hours per project for all FERC-546 filings. The increase in the average hours per project is due to the complexity and length of time required in the planning and monitoring jurisdictional transportation of pipeline certificate and storage projects and that these additional hours need to be properly accounted for in FERC-546 filings.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Texas LNG Project, proposed by Texas LNG Brownsville, LLC (Texas LNG) in the above-referenced docket. Texas LNG requests authorization to site, construct, modify, and operate liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities on the Brownsville Ship Channel in Cameron County, Texas. The Texas LNG Project would include a new LNG export terminal capable of producing up to 4 million tonnes per annum of LNG for export. The terminal would receive natural gas to the export facilities from a third-party intrastate pipeline.
The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Texas LNG Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the Texas LNG Project would result in adverse environmental impacts. However, with the mitigation measures recommended in the EIS, impacts in the project area would be avoided or minimized and would not be significant, with the exception of visual resources when viewed from the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge. In addition, the Texas LNG Project, combined with other projects in the geographic scope, including the Rio Grande LNG and Annova LNG Projects, would result in significant cumulative impacts from sediment/turbidity and shoreline erosions within the Brownsville Ship Channel during operations from vessel transits; on the federally listed ocelot and jaguarundi from habitat loss and potential for increased vehicular strikes during construction; and on visual resources from the presence of aboveground structures. Construction and operation of the Texas LNG Project would result in mostly temporary or short-term environmental impacts; however, some long-term and permanent environmental impacts would occur.
The U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Park Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. Although the cooperating agencies provided input to the conclusions and recommendations presented in the draft EIS, the agencies will present their own conclusions and recommendations in their respective Records of Decision for the project.
The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following project facilities:
The Commission mailed a copy of the
Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. Your comments should focus on draft EIS's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. To
For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP16-116-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426
(4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public comment session its staff will conduct in the project area to receive comments on the draft EIS, scheduled as follows:
The primary goal of this comment session is to have you identify the specific environmental issues and concerns with the draft EIS. Individual verbal comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court reporter. This format is designed to receive the maximum amount of verbal comments, in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted.
The scoping session is scheduled from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. local time. You may arrive at any time after 5:00 p.m. There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff when the session opens. If you wish to speak, the Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival. Comments will be taken until the closing hour for the comment session. However, if no additional numbers have been handed out and all individuals who wish to provide comments have had an opportunity to do so, staff may conclude the session 30 minutes before the closing hour.
It is important to note that verbal comments hold the same weight as written or electronically submitted comments. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the comment session to answer your questions about the environmental review process.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR part 385.214). Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
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 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
On October 29, 2018, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL19-7-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether Lackawanna Energy Center LLC's proposed Rate Schedule may be unjust and unreasonable.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL19-7-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL19-7-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h. Potential
i.
j. Watson Associates filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on August 27, 2018, and provided public notice of the request on September 19, 2018. In a letter dated October 26, 2018, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the New Hampshire State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Watson Associates as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Watson Associates filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission on August 27, 2018, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations. Watson Associates filed a revised PAD with the Commission on October 11, 2018.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website (
o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a subsequent license for Project No. 6240. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.20, each application for a subsequent license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by August 31, 2021.
p. Register online at
On August 24, 2018, FreedomWorks, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Big Run Pump Storage Hydro Project to be located near Parsons in Tucker County, West Virginia. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's website 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. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is November 29, 2018. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Green Mountain Power filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on August 29, 2018, and provided public notice of the request on August 28, 2018. In a letter dated October 26, 2018, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Green Mountain Power's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the Vermont State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Green Mountain Power as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the
m. Green Mountain Power filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website (
o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a subsequent license for Project No. 5261. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.20, each application for a subsequent license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by August 31, 2021.
p. Register online at
The staff of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) has prepared draft
The draft HDD Guidance is available for public viewing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC or Commission) website (
Applicable sections of the Code of Federal Regulations Title 18 are referenced or summarized throughout the draft HDD Guidance. OEP staff is
Interested parties can help us determine appropriate updates and improvements by providing comments or suggestions that focus on the specific sections of the HDD Guidance requiring clarification, updates to reflect current laws and regulations, or additional information that should be included in each resource report. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. A detailed explanation of the rationale underlying your suggested modifications and/or any references to scientific studies associated with your comments would greatly help us with this process.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the docket number (AD19-6-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference Docket No. AD19-6-000 on your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
All of the information related to the proposed updates to the HDD Guidance and submitted comments can be found on the FERC website (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
This notice identifies the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff's revised schedule for the completion of the environmental assessment (EA) for Empire Pipeline, Inc's Empire North Project. The first notice of schedule,
If a schedule change becomes necessary, an additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the project's progress.
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability.
On or about October 29, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making available for public review the draft Integrated Review Plan for the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (draft IRP). This document contains the draft plans and the anticipated schedule for the current review of the air quality criteria and national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for photochemical oxidants including ozone (O
Comments must be received on or before December 3, 2018.
Submit your comments and related information, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0279 to the
This document will be available on the EPA's website at
Dr. Deirdre L. Murphy, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, (Mail Code C504-06), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 919-541-0729, fax number: 919-541-027; or email:
1.
2.
• Identify the notice by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternative and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumption and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
Two sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) govern the establishment and revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 directs the Administrator to identify and list certain air pollutants and then issue “air quality criteria” for those pollutants. The air quality criteria are to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of such pollutant in the ambient air . . .” (CAA section 108(a)(2)). Under section 109 of the Act, the EPA is then to establish primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for each pollutant for which the EPA has issued air quality criteria. Section 109(d)(1) of the Act requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. Revised air quality criteria are to reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health and welfare. Under the same provision, the EPA is also to periodically review and, if appropriate, revise the NAAQS, based on the revised air quality criteria.
The Act additionally requires appointment of an independent scientific review committee that is to periodically review the existing air quality criteria and NAAQS and to recommend any new standards and revisions of existing criteria and standards as may be appropriate (CAA section 109(d)(2)(A)-(B)). Since the early 1980s, the requirement for an independent scientific review committee has been fulfilled by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).
Presently the EPA is reviewing the air quality criteria and NAAQS for photochemical oxidants and O
The draft IRP is being made available for consultation with CASAC and for public comment. Comments should be submitted to the docket, as described above, by December 3, 2018. A separate
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
There will be a 2-hour preparatory virtual meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) on November 14, 2018, to consider and review the scope and clarity of the draft charge questions for the December 4-7, 2018 FIFRA SAP Meeting on the Evaluation of a Proposed Approach to Refine Inhalation Risk Assessment for Point of Contact Toxicity: A Case Study Using a New Approach Methodology (NAM). In addition, EPA is announcing and inviting comments on the experts currently under consideration as ad hoc participants in this review.
The preparatory virtual meeting will be held on November 14, 2018, from approximately 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. (EST). This is an open public meeting that will be conducted via webcast using Adobe Connect and telephone. Registration is required to participate during this meeting. Please visit:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Dr. Shaunta Hill-Hammond, Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-3343; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and FIFRA. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
1.
2.
You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0517 in the subject line on the first page of your request.
1.
2.
During the preparatory virtual meeting scheduled for November 14, 2018, the FIFRA SAP will review and consider the draft Charge Questions for the Panel's December 4-7, 2018 Meeting on Evaluation of a Proposed Approach to Refine Inhalation Risk Assessment for Point of Contact Toxicity: A Case Study Using a NAM. The SAP will receive a short background briefing including the EPA's history and current position on the methodology being considered. In addition, the panel members will have the opportunity to comment on the scope and clarity of the draft charge questions. Subsequent to this virtual meeting, final charge questions will be provided for the FIFRA SAP's deliberation on the methodology and supplemental information during the in-person meeting to be held December 4-7, 2018.
FIFRA SAP serves as a primary scientific peer review mechanism of EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) and is structured to provide scientific advice, information and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the environment. FIFRA SAP is a Federal advisory committee established in 1975 under FIFRA that operates in accordance with requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix). FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA Administrator from nominees provided by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. The FIFRA SAP is assisted in their reviews by ad hoc participation from the Science Review Board (SRB). As a scientific peer review mechanism, FIFRA SAP provides comments, evaluations, and recommendations to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. The FIFRA SAP is not required to reach consensus in its recommendations to the Agency.
EPA's background paper, charge/questions to FIFRA SAP, and related supporting materials were made available on September 7, 2018. You may obtain electronic copies of most meeting documents, including the list of experts currently under consideration as ad hoc participants in this review, at
7 U.S.C. 136
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before January 2, 2019. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before January 2, 2019. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email:
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
On August 18, 2016, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 16-110, in WP Docket No. 16-261, RM-11719 and RM-11722 (2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking), which proposed to amend Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to expand access to private land mobile radio (PLMR) spectrum. Among the many actions taken in the 2016 Spectrum Access NPRM, the Commission proposed to make certain frequencies that are designated for central station alarm operations available for other PLMR uses.
Specifically, the Commission proposed to modify section 95.35(c)(63) to remove the use limitation in the urbanized areas where the frequencies designated for alarm use in urban areas are not in use. The Commission tentatively concluded that it would be in the public interest to make these frequencies available for other PLMR operations in those areas and sought comment on this proposal, including its costs and benefits. The Commission also sought comment on other ways to expand PLMR users' access to frequencies that are designated, but no longer needed, for central station commercial protection services, including by making available channels in urbanized areas where some of the urban frequencies are in use, including: Related costs and benefits associated with such proposals; current and expected future need for central station commercial protection service channels in the 460-470 MHz band; and how to protect incumbent central station commercial protection service operations from harmful interference if eliminating the use restriction on any frequency in any area where it currently is in use.
On October 22, 2018, the Commission issued a Report and Order and Order, FCC 18-143, in WP Docket No. 15-32, RM-11572, WP Docket No. 16-261, RM-11719 and RM-11722 (800/PLMR Access Order), in which it revised certain rules to require applicants for channels currently designated for central station alarm use to obtain the concurrence of the central station alarm frequency coordinator in order to use the channels for uses other than central station alarm operations. This requirement is similar to existing requirements pertaining to certain other channels. The Report and Order and Order did not revise any of the information collection requirements that are contained in this collection but rather added additional frequencies to the list. Therefore, this essentially is adding an additional 200 respondents to this collection.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of the existing information collections described below (3064-0111, 3064-0136, and 3064-0171).
Comments must be submitted on or before January 2, 2019.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Jennifer Jones, Counsel, 202-898-6768,
1.
There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall reduction in burden hours is the result of economic fluctuation. In particular, the number of respondents has decreased while the hours per response and frequency of responses have remained the same.
2.
There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The hours per response and frequency of responses have remained the same.
3.
There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall reduction in burden hours is the result of economic fluctuation. In particular, the number of respondents has decreased while the hours per response and frequency of responses have remained the same.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
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 26, 2018.
1.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 19, 2018.
1.
The Employee Thrift Advisory Council will meet Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 1 p.m. (In-Person) at 77 K Street NE, Washington, DC 20002. The agenda for the meeting is:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC announces the following meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH). This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting space accommodates approximately 150 people and the audio conference line has 150 ports for callers. The public is welcome to submit written comments in advance of the meeting, to the contact person below. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting. The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting by joining the teleconference (information below).
The meeting will be held on December 12, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., PST, and December 13, 2018, 8:15 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., PST. A public comment session will be held on December 12, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. and conclude at 6:30 p.m. or following the final call for public comment, whichever comes first.
Crowne Plaza, 300 North Harbor Drive, Redondo Beach, California 90272; Phone: (310) 318-8888, Fax: (310) 376-1930 and audio conference call via FTS Conferencing. The USA toll-free dial-in number is 1-866-659-0537; the pass code is 9933701. Web conference by Skype: Meeting CONNECTION:
Theodore Katz, MPA, Designated Federal Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, Mailstop E-20, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, Telephone (513) 533-6800, Toll Free 1 (800) CDC-INFO, Email
The Advisory Board's charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, rechartered under Executive Order 13811 on February 12, 2018, and will terminate on September 30, 2019.
The Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC announces the following meeting for the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, (BSC, NCIPC). This meeting is open to the public limited only by the space and ports available. The meeting room accommodates 70 participants and there will be 75 ports available. Due to the limited availability of phone line ports, we are encouraging the pubic to please register using the link provided: Register Here. There will be a public comment period at the end of the day from 03:30 p.m.—04:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held on December 12, 2018, 09:00 a.m. to 04:30 p.m., EST.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Chamblee Campus, Building 106, Conference Room 1-A, 4770 Buford Highway, Atlanta, Georgia 30341 and via Teleconference: Dial-In Number: 1-888-780-9652, Participant Code: 8435823.
Gwendolyn H. Cattledge, Ph.D., M.S.E.H., Deputy Associate Director for Science, NCIPC, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, Mailstop F-63, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone (770) 488-1430. Email address:
The Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC announces the following meeting of the Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis Meeting (ACET). This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 80 people and has 100 ports for audio phone lines. Time will be available for public comment. The public is welcome to submit written comments in advance of the meeting. Comments should be submitted in writing by email to the contact person listed below. The deadline for receipt is Monday, December 10, 2018. Persons who desire to make an oral statement, may request it at the time of the public comment period on December 12, 2018 at 11:40 a.m., EST.
The meeting will be held on December 11, 2018, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., EST and December 12, 2018, 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., EST.
8 Corporate Blvd., Building 8, Conference Rooms 1-A/B/C, Atlanta, Georgia, 30329 and Web conference: 1-877-927-1433 and participant passcode: 12016435 and
Margie Scott-Cseh, Committee Management Specialist, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, Mailstop: E-07, Atlanta, Georgia, 30333, telephone (404) 639-8317;
The Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice with request for comment.
This proposed notice acknowledges the receipt of an application from the Accreditation Commission for Health Care, Inc., for recognition as a national accrediting organization for End Stage Renal Disease Facilities that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on December 3, 2018.
In commenting, refer to file code CMS-3371-PN. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
Comments, including mass comment submissions, must be submitted in one of the following three ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Monda Shaver, (410) 786-3410, Joann Fitzell, (410) 786-4280, or Renee Henry, (410) 786-7828.
Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services from an end-stage renal disease (ESRD) facility provided the facility meets the requirements established by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary). Section 1881(b) of the Social Security Act (the Act) establishes distinct requirements for facilities seeking designation as an ESRD facility under Medicare. Regulations concerning provider agreements and supplier approval are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey, certification, and enforcement procedures of suppliers which include ESRD facilities are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 494 subparts A through D implement section 1881(b) of the Act, which specify the conditions that an ESRD facility must meet in order to participate in the Medicare program and the conditions for Medicare payment for ESRD facilities.
Generally, to enter into a Medicare agreement, an ESRD facility must first be certified by a State survey agency (SA) as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 494 subparts A through D of our Medicare regulations. Thereafter, the ESRD facility is subject to regular surveys by a SA to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements.
Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) approved national accrediting organization (AO) that all applicable Medicare conditions are met or exceeded, we may deem those provider entities as having met the requirements. Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act had historically excluded dialysis facilities from participating in Medicare via a CMS-approved accreditation program; however, section 50404 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 amended section 1865(a) of the Act to include renal dialysis facilities as provider entities allowed to participate in Medicare through a CMS-approved accreditation program. Accreditation by an AO is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.
If an AO is recognized by the Secretary as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program may be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions. An AO applying for approval of its accreditation program under part 488, subpart A, must provide CMS with reasonable assurance that the AO requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of AOs are set forth at § 488.5.
Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5 require that our findings concerning review and approval of an AO's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying AO's requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide CMS with the necessary data for validation.
Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act further requires that we publish, within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice identifying the national accrediting body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. We have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.
The purpose of this proposed notice is to inform the public of Accreditation Commission for Health Care, Inc.'s (ACHC's) request for CMS-approval of its ESRD facility accreditation program. This notice also solicits public comment on whether ACHC's requirements meet or exceed the Medicare conditions for coverage (CfCs) for ESRD facilities.
ACHC submitted all the necessary materials to enable us to make a determination concerning its request for CMS-approval of its ESRD facility accreditation program. This application was determined to be complete on September 13, 2018. Under section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and regulations at § 488.5, our review and evaluation of ACHC will be conducted in accordance with, but not necessarily limited to, the following factors:
• The equivalency of ACHC's standards for ESRD facilities as compared with Medicare's CfCs for ESRD facilities.
• ACHC's survey process to determine the following:
++ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of the organization to provide continuing surveyor training.
++ The comparability of ACHC's processes to those of State agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.
++ ACHC's processes and procedures for monitoring an ESRD facility found out of compliance with ACHC's program requirements. These monitoring procedures are used only when ACHC identifies noncompliance. If noncompliance is identified through validation reviews or complaint surveys, the State survey agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.9(c)(1).
++ ACHC's capacity to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.
++ ACHC's capacity to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.
++ The adequacy of ACHC's staff and other resources, and its financial viability.
++ ACHC's capacity to adequately fund required surveys.
++ ACHC's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced, to assure that surveys are unannounced.
++ ACHC's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as CMS may require (including corrective action plans).
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
Upon completion of our evaluation, including evaluation of comments received as a result of this notice, we will publish a final notice in the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This quarterly notice lists CMS manual instructions, substantive and interpretive regulations, and other
It is possible that an interested party may need specific information and not be able to determine from the listed information whether the issuance or regulation would fulfill that need. Consequently, we are providing contact persons to answer general questions concerning each of the addenda published in this notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is responsible for administering the Medicare and Medicaid programs and coordination and oversight of private health insurance. Administration and oversight of these programs involves the following: (1) Furnishing information to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, health care providers, and the public; and (2) maintaining effective communications with CMS regional offices, state governments, state Medicaid agencies, state survey agencies, various providers of health care, all Medicare contractors that process claims and pay bills, National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), health insurers, and other stakeholders. To implement the various statutes on which the programs are based, we issue regulations under the authority granted to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under sections 1102, 1871, 1902, and related provisions of the Social Security Act (the Act) and Public Health Service Act. We also issue various manuals, memoranda, and statements necessary to administer and oversee the programs efficiently.
Section 1871(c) of the Act requires that we publish a list of all Medicare manual instructions, interpretive rules, statements of policy, and guidelines of general applicability not issued as regulations at least every 3 months in the
This quarterly notice provides only the specific updates that have occurred in the 3-month period along with a hyperlink to the full listing that is available on the CMS website or the appropriate data registries that are used as our resources. This is the most current up-to-date information and will be available earlier than we publish our quarterly notice. We believe the website list provides more timely access for beneficiaries, providers, and suppliers. We also believe the website offers a more convenient tool for the public to find the full list of qualified providers for these specific services and offers more flexibility and “real time” accessibility. In addition, many of the websites have listservs; that is, the public can subscribe and receive immediate notification of any updates to the website. These listservs avoid the need to check the website, as notification of updates is automatic and sent to the subscriber as they occur. If assessing a website proves to be difficult, the contact person listed can provide information.
This notice is organized into 15 addenda so that a reader may access the subjects published during the quarter covered by the notice to determine whether any are of particular interest. We expect this notice to be used in concert with previously published notices. Those unfamiliar with a description of our Medicare manuals should view the manuals at
Administration for Community Living, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed collection of information listed above. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish a notice in the
This New Data Collection (ICR New) solicits comments on the information collection requirements relating to the Aging and Disability Resource Center/No Wrong Door System (ADRC/NWD). The statutory authority for ADRC/NWD is contained in Title IV of the Older Americans Act (OAA), as amended by the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006, Public Law 109-365.
Comments on the collection of information must be submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m. (EST) or postmarked by January 2, 2019.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to: Ami Patel,
Ami Patel at (202) 795-7376 or
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, ACL invites comments on our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of ACL's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) the accuracy of ACL's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine burden estimates;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
ACL, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) have partnered to support states' efforts in developing coordinated systems of access, or No Wrong Door (NWD) Systems, to make it easier for people to learn about and access long-term services and supports (LTSS). When seeking services and supports, individuals and caregivers often face multiple, fragmented processes that are complex and confusing. States' access systems have been built over time as programs and funding streams have been added, creating duplicative eligibility and intake processes that are difficult for individuals and their caregivers to use. To address these issues, the NWD System model supports state efforts to streamline access to LTSS options for all populations and provides the infrastructure to promote the collaboration of local service organizations, making service delivery more efficient and person-centered. Examples of coordinated efforts include processes where individuals are assessed once via a common or standardized data collection method that captures a core set of individual level data relevant for determining the range of necessary LTSS.
The federal vision for the NWD System gives states flexibility in determining how best to organize, structure and operate the various functions of their NWD System. States continue to integrate, in some cases restructure, and over time strengthen their existing programs in order to realize the joint ACL/CMS/VHA vision for a fully coordinated and integrated system of access. These efforts are supported by a variety of initiatives, including the VHA's Veteran Directed Care (VDC) program, an evidence-based self-directed program where person-centered counselors from aging and disability network agencies within a state's NWD System provide facilitated assessment and care planning, arrange fiscal management services and provide ongoing counseling and support to Veterans, their families and caregivers.
The NWD System Management Tool (NWD MT) provides a platform for data collection necessary to evaluate the four primary functions of a NWD System: State Governance and Administration, Public Outreach and Coordination with Key Referral Sources, Person Centered Counseling, and Streamlined Access to Public LTSS Programs. In addition, this tool will include data collection for the VDC program to collect qualitative and quantitative data elements necessary to evaluate the impact of the VDC program. The VDC tool will track key performance measures and identify best practices and technical assistance needs.
The NWD MT and the VDC tool will enable ACL and its partners to collect and analyze data elements necessary to assess the progress of the NWD System model, track performance measures, and identify gaps and best practices. These tools have been designed in close collaboration with states and are intended to simplify grant reporting requirements to reduce burden on local and state entities and will provide a consistent, streamlined and coordinated statewide approach to help states govern their NWD System and manage their programs efficiently.
The proposed data collection tools may be found on the ACL website for review at:
ACL estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Fifty-six lead NWD System state and territorial agencies will respond to the NWD MT bi-annually and it will take approximately half an hour to collect the data and an additional half hour to input the data into a web-based system.
An estimated 400 VDC program entities will respond to the VDC Tool on a monthly basis, all of which are also NWD local-level entities, for an annual burden of 2,400 hours. This burden estimate is calculated based upon information provided by a current VDC program provider testing a demonstration of the VDC tool. The NWD MT and the VDC tool have been developed to increase ease and uniformity of reporting and improve the ability of ACL to manage and analyze data.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection: Developing Drugs for Treatment.” The purpose of this guidance is to assist sponsors in the clinical development of drugs and biologics for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection from the initial investigational new drug application (IND) through the new drug application (NDA)/biologics license application (BLA) and postmarketing phases.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by January 2, 2019 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Poonam Mishra, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6100, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-1500.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection: Developing Drugs for Treatment.” The purpose of this guidance is to assist sponsors in the clinical development of drugs and biologics for the treatment of chronic HBV infection from the initial IND through the NDA/BLA and postmarketing phases. The guidance includes general considerations for nonclinical toxicology and virology studies, early phase clinical development, clinical pharmacology assessments, and phase 3 safety and efficacy trials. The guidance discusses phase 3 trial design considerations and efficacy endpoints for the development of combination therapies for the treatment of chronic HBV infection. Drug development considerations for specific subpopulations such as patients coinfected with hepatitis D virus or human immunodeficiency virus and pediatric HBV-infected patients are also included.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection: Developing Drugs for Treatment.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001, respectively. The submission of prescription drug labeling under 21 CFR 201.56 and 201.57 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0572.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the following public workshop entitled “Product Development in Hemophilia.” The purpose of the public workshop is to discuss issues related to development and regulation of novel hemophilia products.
The public workshop will be held on December 6, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. See the
The public workshop will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
Joan Ferlo Todd, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of Hematology and Oncology Products, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 2139, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6079,
Hemophilia is a bleeding disorder caused by deficiency of coagulation factor VIII (hemophilia A) or coagulation factor IX (hemophilia B). Hemophilia treatment strategies are intended to prevent or control bleeding and the attendant complications. Recently, hemophilia treatment strategies have led to the development of factor concentrates, recombinant DNA technology products, antibodies, and potential curative strategies such as gene therapy. These new emerging technologies raise new considerations about trial design, novel endpoints, patient-reported outcomes, and long-term safety collection.
This public workshop is intended to provide a platform for engaging in a discussion with experts in hemophilia treatment, patients, and caregivers. The purpose of this workshop is to advance further development of patient-experience and patient-reported outcomes for use in clinical trials, facilitate reliable and interpretable measurements of factor VIII/IX activity
The workshop will feature presentations and panel discussions on hemophilia product development. The presentations will include an overview of product development in hemophilia, and the regulatory challenges in the development of novel hemophilia therapies. Five sessions include presentations to frame panel discussions to cover the following topics:
1. Overview of product development in hemophilia;
2. Efficacy endpoints related to bleeding outcomes and considerations for factor activity as a surrogate endpoint;
3. Patient and caregiver perspectives on developing outcomes for clinical trials;
4. Discrepancies in the factor activity measurements by different assays observed in gene therapy trials and root causes for the discrepancies; and
5. Clinical trial design considerations for follow up on safety, efficacy, enrollment of pediatric patients in gene therapy trials, and the applicability of on-demand treatment as a control group in the evolving landscape of treatment options in hemophilia.
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. Registrants will receive confirmation when they have been accepted.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Joan Ferlo Todd at
If you have never attended a webcast event before, test your connection at
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Announcement of Supplemental Award.
HRSA provided supplemental grant funds to a currently funded National Training and Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreement (NCA) award recipient to coordinate and provide training and technical assistance (T/TA) to health centers that serve migrant and seasonal agricultural workers (MSAW) and their families through three regional forums.
The award recipient will lead the coordination and management of three regional Migrant Stream Forums to provide T/TA addressing the critical health needs of MSAW in alignment with HRSA priorities. T/TA provided at the Migrant Stream Forums is targeted to a broad range of health center staff positions, and covers diverse topics that address the needs of migrant health centers and the patients they serve. Supplemental funds are necessary to support their timely and successful implementation.
This supplemental funding will augment the current NCA investment for these T/TA opportunities through support of enhanced personnel presence, the availability of continuing education unit-bearing educational sessions to meet the diverse needs of multidisciplinary health center staff, and speaker and participant stipends that underscore the unique value these in-person regional T/TA sessions provide.
Tracey Orloff, Strategic Partnerships Division Director in the Bureau of Primary Health Care, Office of Quality Improvement, at
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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of meeting.
The United States Coast Guard will conduct an open meeting in Washington, DC in preparation for the upcoming one hundred twenty first session of IMO Council to be held at the IMO Headquarters, United Kingdom, November 19-23, 2018.
This meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 13, 2018, beginning at 10:30 a.m., Eastern Time. This meeting is open to the public.
The public meeting will be held in Room 5L18-01 of the Douglas A. Munro Coast Guard Headquarters Building at St. Elizabeth's, 2703 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20593. Due to security requirements, each visitor must present two valid, government-issued forms of identification in order to gain entrance to the building. Those desiring to attend the public meeting should contact the Coast Guard ahead of the meeting (see
For additional information about this public meeting you may contact Lieutenant Commander Staci Weist by telephone at 202-372-1376 or by email at
The primary purpose of this meeting is to prepare for the upcoming one hundred twenty first session of IMO Council (C 120). The agenda items for this session include:
Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. To facilitate the building security process, and to request reasonable accommodation, those who plan to attend should contact the meeting coordinator, Lieutenant Commander Staci Weist, not later than November 7, 2018. Requests made after November 7, 2018, may not be able to be accommodated. It is recommended that attendees arrive to Coast Guard Headquarters no later than 30 minutes ahead of the scheduled meeting for the security screening process. Parking in the vicinity of the building is extremely limited. Additional information regarding this and other IMO public meetings may be found at:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Wisconsin (FEMA-4402-DR), dated October 18, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued October 18, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 18, 2018, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Wisconsin resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line winds, flooding, and landslides during the period of August 17 to September 14, 2018, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Steven W. Johnson, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Wisconsin have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Crawford, Dane, Juneau, La Crosse, Monroe, Richland, Sauk, and Vernon Counties for Individual Assistance.
Adams, Crawford, Dane, Fond du Lac, Green Lake, Iron, Juneau, La Crosse, Marquette, Monroe, Ozaukee, Richland, Sauk, and Vernon Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Wisconsin are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4393-DR), dated September 14, 2018, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued October 24, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of North Carolina is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 14, 2018.
Alamance, Madison, Polk, Rowan, and Tyrrell Counties for Public Assistance, including direct federal assistance.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of Georgia (FEMA-3406-EM), dated October 10, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued October 10, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 10, 2018, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas of the State of Georgia resulting from Hurricane Michael beginning on October 9, 2018, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
Therefore, I declare that such an emergency exists in the State of Georgia.
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program in selected areas and emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program in selected areas.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to Section 428 of the Stafford Act. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Manny J. Toro, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the State of Georgia have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
Baker, Bleckley, Burke, Calhoun, Colquitt, Crisp, Decatur, Dodge, Dooly, Dougherty, Early, Emanuel, Grady, Houston, Jefferson, Jenkins, Johnson, Laurens, Lee, Macon, Miller, Mitchell, Pulaski, Seminole, Sumter, Terrell, Thomas, Treutlen, Turner, Wilcox, and Worth Counties for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Appling, Atkinson, Bacon, Baldwin, Ben Hill, Berrien, Bibb, Brantley, Brooks, Bryan, Bulloch, Butts, Camden, Candler, Charlton, Chatham, Chattahoochee, Clarke, Clay, Clinch, Coffee, Columbia, Cook, Crawford, Echols, Effingham, Elbert, Evans, Glascock, Glynn, Greene, Hancock, Irwin, Jasper, Jeff Davis, Jones, Lamar, Lanier, Liberty, Lincoln, Long, Lowndes, Marion, McDuffie, McIntosh, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Muscogee, Oconee, Oglethorpe, Peach, Pierce, Putnam, Quitman, Randolph, Richmond, Schley, Screven, Stewart, Talbot, Taliaferro, Tattnall, Taylor, Telfair, Tift, Toombs, Twiggs, Upson, Ware, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Webster, Wheeler, Wilkes, and Wilkinson Counties for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The date of February 1, 2019 has been established for the FIRM and,
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4400-DR), dated October 14, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued October 14, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 14, 2018, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Georgia resulting from Hurricane Michael during the period October 9, 2018, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance, assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B) under the Public Assistance program in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem appropriate subject to completion of Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs).
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Manny J. Toro, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Georgia have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Baker, Decatur, Dougherty, Early, Miller, and Seminole Counties for Individual; Assistance.
Baker, Bleckley, Burke, Calhoun, Colquitt, Crisp, Decatur, Dodge, Dooly, Dougherty, Early, Emanuel, Grady, Houston, Jefferson, Jenkins, Johnson, Laurens, Lee, Macon, Miller, Mitchell, Pulaski, Seminole, Sumter, Terrell, Thomas, Treutlen, Turner, Wilcox, and Worth Counties for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program at 75 percent federal funding.
All areas within the State of Georgia are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4400-DR), dated October 14, 2018, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued October 16, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of October 14, 2018.
Crisp, Grady, Lee, Mitchell, Terrell, Thomas, and Worth Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance under the Public Assistance program).
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE), is submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the PRA Clearance Officer for USICE and sent via electronic mail to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 2, 2019.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0130 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2013-0005. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The State of Oklahoma entered into a compact amendment with the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes governing certain forms of class III gaming; this notice announces the approval of the Model Tribal Gaming Compact Supplement between the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes and State of Oklahoma.
The compact amendment is effective on November 2, 2018.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.
Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
Bureau of Land Management, Interior
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Record of Decision (ROD) to Authorize a Right-of-Way (ROW) and amend the California Desert Conservation Area Plan (CDCA Plan) for the EDF Renewable Energy Palen Solar Photovoltaic Project, and by this Notice is announcing its availability. The Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals Management (ASLM) signed the ROD on October 29, 2018, which constitutes the final decision of the Department, and makes the Approved Land Use Plan Amendment to the CDCA Plan and authorization of a ROW effective immediately. This decision is not subject to appeal under Departmental regulations, and any challenge to this decision, including the BLM Authorized Officer's issuance of the ROW as directed by this decision, must be brought in Federal district court.
The ASLM signed the ROD on October 29, 2018.
Copies of the ROD are available for public inspection at the BLM-Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office at 1201 Bird Center Dr., Palm Springs, CA 92262 and at the BLM-California Desert District Office, 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, CA 92553. Interested persons may also review the ROD on the internet at:
Mark DeMaio, BLM Project Manager, telephone (760) 833-7100; address, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office, 1201 Bird Center Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262; or email
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
EDF Renewable Energy has applied for a ROW from the BLM to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission a 500 megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic facility near Desert Center, Riverside County, California. The ROW application area comprises about 4,200 acres, with a proposed project footprint of 3,381 acres. The proposed project also includes construction of a 6.7-mile single circuit 230 kilovolt generation interconnection (gen-tie) transmission line connecting the project to the Southern California Edison Red Bluff Substation. The BLM determined that an amendment to the CDCA Plan would be necessary to authorize the project. Riverside County is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The BLM and Riverside County prepared a joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for compliance with NEPA and CEQA.
This Project application was originally submitted in 2007 as the Palen Solar Power Project (PSPP) by Palen Solar I LLC (PSI), a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Millennium. The PSPP was proposed as a solar trough project and was the subject of an EIS under NEPA. The BLM, pursuant to its obligations under FLPMA and NEPA, published a draft EIS, followed by a Proposed CDCA Plan Amendment and Final EIS on May 13, 2011 (76 FR 28064). Before a Record of Decision was issued, PSI informed the BLM that it would not construct the Project due to bankruptcy. As a result, a decision was not issued, the CDCA Plan was not amended, and a ROW grant was not issued for the PSPP. On June 21, 2012, the bankruptcy court approved the transfer of the application from PSI to Palen Solar III LLC (PSIII). BrightSource Energy Inc. (BSE) then acquired all rights to PSIII at auction. PSIII submitted a revised ROW application to the BLM for the Palen Solar Electricity Generating System Project (PSEGS), a 500 MW concentrating solar power tower technology facility and single-circuit 230 kV gen-tie line. On July 27, 2013, the BLM issued a Draft Supplemental EIS and Plan Amendment to evaluate the potential additional environmental impacts caused by PSEGS. As part of the state permitting process, the California Energy Commission evaluated the PSEGS under CEQA, and issued Preliminary and Final Staff Assessments for the amended project in June and November of 2013,
The BLM held public meetings on the revised ROW application in June and August 2016 in Palm Springs, California. On October 27, 2017, the BLM issued the Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR and Draft Land Use Plan Amendment, which analyzed the impacts of the Proposed Action and two action alternatives, in addition to a No Action Alternative. Alternative 1, Reduced Footprint, would be a 500 MW Photovoltaic (PV) array and gen-tie on about 3,140 acres. It avoids the central and largest desert wash and incorporates a more efficient use of the land for the solar array. Alternative 2, Avoidance Alternative, would be a solar PV project on about 1,620 acres (160 to 230 MW). Like the Proposed Action, under each of these alternatives, the BLM would amend the CDCA Plan to allow the project. Under the No-Action Alternative, the BLM would deny the ROW application, and would not amend the CDCA Plan to allow the project.
The Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR and Draft Land Use Plan Amendment included analysis of the revised ROW application as it related to issues such as: (1) Updated description of the Proposed Project, based on the revised ROW application; (2) Impacts to cultural resources and tribal concerns; (3) Impacts to the Sand Transport Corridor and Mojave fringe-toed lizard habitat and washes; (4) Impacts to Joshua Tree National Park; (5) Impacts to avian species; (6) Impacts to visual resources; and (7) Relationship between the Proposed Project and the CDCA Plan, including the amendment to the CDCA Plan by the 2016 Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.
The Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR was released in October 2017, which included a formal 45-day public comment period. The BLM held a public meeting on November 14, 2017, in Palm Desert, CA. Fourteen individuals attended that meeting. The BLM received 40 comment letters during the comment period.
Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR and Draft Land Use Plan Amendment received from the public and internal agency review were considered and incorporated as appropriate into the EIS/EIR analysis. These comments resulted in the addition of clarifying text, but did not result in changes in the design, location, or timing of the Project in a way that would cause significant effects to the human environment outside of the range of effects analyzed in the EIS/EIR. Similarly, none of the letters identified new significant circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns that bear on the Project and its effects. A response to substantive comments is included in the Final Supplemental EIS/EIR and Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment, released in May 2018. The BLM selected Alternative 1, the Reduced Footprint, as the Agency Preferred Alternative in the Final Supplemental EIS/EIR and Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment. Five protests were received on the Final EIS, and the issues raised have been resolved. As a result, only minor editorial modifications were made in response to the issues raised in preparing the Approved Action. These modifications provided further clarification of some of the decision elements. The California Governor's consistency review identified no inconsistences with the Final SEIS for the Preferred Alternative.
With this ROD, the BLM adopts the Agency Preferred Alternative. The ASLM approval of this decision is not subject to administrative appeal under Departmental regulations at 43 CFR part 4 pursuant to 43 CFR 4.410(a)(3). Any challenge to this decision must be brought in Federal District Court and is subject to 42 U.S.C. 4370m-6(a)(1).
40 CFR 1506.6; 40 CFR 1506.10; 43 CFR 1610.2; 43 CFR 1610.5; 42 U.S.C. 4370m-6(a)(1)
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Temporary closure on public lands in Nevada.
The Las Vegas Field Office announces the temporary closure of certain public lands under its administration. The Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) race area in Laughlin is used by OHV recreationists, and the temporary closure is needed to limit their access to the race area and to minimize the risk of potential collisions with spectators and racers during the 2018 Rage at the River Off-Highway Vehicle Races.
The temporary closure for the 2018 Rage at the River will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. on December 8, 2018 and will remain in effect until 11:59 p.m. on December 9, 2018.
The temporary closure order, communications plan, and map of the temporary closure area will be posted at the BLM Las Vegas Field Office, 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130 and on the BLM website:
Kenny Kendrick, Outdoor Recreation Planner, (702) 515-5073.
The Las Vegas Field Office announces the temporary closure of certain public lands under its administration. This action is being taken to help ensure public safety during the official permitted running of the 2018 Rage at the River.
The public lands affected by this closure are described as follows:
sec. 17, E
The areas described aggregate 5,120 acres, according to the official plats of the surveys of the said lands, on fie with the BLM.
The following restrictions will be in effect for the duration of the closure to ensure public safety of participants and spectators. Unless otherwise authorized, the following activities within the closure area are prohibited:
• Camping.
• Possession and/or consuming any alcoholic beverage unless the person has reached the age of 21 years.
• Discharging or use of firearms, other weapons.
• Possession and/or discharging of fireworks.
• Allowing any pet or other animal in their care to be unrestrained at any time. Animals must be on a leash or other restraint no longer than 3 feet.
• Operation of any vehicle including All Terrain Vehicles (ATV), motorcycles, Utility Terrain Vehicles (UTV), golf carts, and any off-highway vehicle (OHV), which is not legally registered for street and highway operation, including operation of such a vehicle in spectator viewing areas.
• Parking any vehicle in violation of posted restrictions, or in such a manner as to obstruct or impede normal or emergency traffic movement or the parking of other vehicles, create a safety hazard, or endanger any person, property, or feature. Vehicles so parked are subject to citation, removal, and impoundment at the owner's expense.
• Operating a vehicle through, around or beyond a restrictive sign, recognizable barricade, fence, or traffic control barrier or device.
• Failing to maintain control of a vehicle to avoid danger to persons, property, or wildlife.
• Operating a motor vehicle without due care or at a speed greater than 25 mph. Signs and maps directing the public to designated spectator areas will be provided by the event sponsor.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice; Correction.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published a document in the
Jennifer Noe, by telephone, 202-912-7442, or by email,
In the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
To ensure comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Draft EIS within 45 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the
November 8, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote on Inv. Nos. 701-TA-589 and 731-TA-1394-1395 (Final) (Forged Steel Fittings from China and Italy). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission by November 19, 2018.
5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge has issued a Final Initial Determination on Section 337 Violation and a Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief, should the Commission find a violation. This notice is soliciting public interest comments from the public only. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to Commission rules.
Carl Bretscher, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2382. 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 (
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“Section 337”) provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States unless after considering the public interest factors listed in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), it finds such articles should not be prevented from entry. A similar provision applies to cease and desist orders. 19 U.S.C. 1337(f)(1).
The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation, specifically whether the Commission should issue: (1) A limited exclusion order (“LEO”) against certain magnetic data storage devices that are imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation by Respondents Sony Corporation of Tokyo, Japan, Sony Storage Media Solutions Corporation of Tokyo, Japan, Sony Storage Media Manufacturing Corporation of Miyagi, Japan, Sony DADC US Inc. (“Sony DADC”) of Terre Haute, Indian, and Sony Latin America Inc. (“SOLA”) of Miami, Florida; and (2) a cease and desist order (“CDO”) against Sony DADC and SOLA.
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in this investigation. Accordingly, parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4). In addition, members of the public are hereby invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on October 25, 2018. Comments should address whether issuance of the LEO and CDO in this investigation, should the Commission find a violation, would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended orders are used in the United States;
(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;
(iii) Identify like or directly competitive articles that complainants, their licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) Indicate whether complainants, complainants' licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) Explain how the LEO and CDO would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions from the public must be filed no later than by close of business on Friday, November 30, 2018.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1065”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
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.
Notice is hereby given that, on October 9, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: 6Fathoms Consulting LLC, Austin, TX; Adolf Meller Co. dba Meller Optics, Providence, RI; Advanced Acoustic Concepts LLC, Hauppauge, NY; Advanced Systems Supportability Engineering Technologies and Tools, Inc. (ASSETT), Manassas, VA; Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc., Huntsville, AL; Alion Science and Technology Corporation, Burr Ridge, IL; AMETEK SCP, Westerly, RI; AMSEC, LLC, Virginia Beach, VA; ANDRO Computational Solutions LLC, Rome NY; Applied Physical Sciences Corp., Groton, CT; Applied Research in Acoustics LLC (dba ARiA), Washington, DC; Applied Technical Systems, Inc. (ATS), Silverdale, WA; Aquabotix Technology Corporation, Fall River, MA; Arete Associates, Northridge, CA; Arnold Magnetic Technologies Corporation, Rochester, NY; Atlantic Diving Supply, Inc. (ADS), Virginia Beach, VA; ATLAS North America (ANA), Yorktown, VA; BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration, Inc., Hudson, NH; BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., Rockville, MD; Barber-Nichols, Inc., Arvada, CO; Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH; Blue Institute Labs dba Blue Incubator PBC, Plymouth, MA; Blue Ridge Envisioneering, Chantilly, VA; BlueHaptics, Inc. dba Olis Robotics, Seattle, WA; Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., McLean, VA; Cardinal Engineering LLC, Annapolis, MD; CeraNova Corporation, Marlborough, MA; Clear Carbon and Components, Inc., Bristol, RI; Creare, LLC, Hanover, NH; CSA Ocean Sciences, Inc., Stuart, FL; Cydecor, Inc., Arlington, VA; Daniel H. Wagner Associates, Inc., Exton, PA; DBV Technology LLC, North Kingstown, RI; Dioxide Materials, Inc., Boca Raton, FL; Dive Technologies, Inc., Hingham, MA; DRS Power Technology, Inc. dba Leonardo DRS, Fitchburg, MA; EaglePicher Technologies, St. Louis, MO; EdgeOne LLC dba EdgeTech, Boca Raton, FL; EpiSys Science, Inc., Poway, CA; Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc., San Diego, CA; Evans Capacitor Company, East Providence, RI; General Atomics, San Diego, CA; General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc., Fairfax, VA; Global Foundation for Ocean Exploration, West Redding, CT; Globe Composite Solutions Ltd., Stoughton, MA; Granite State Manufacturing, Manchester, NH; Greensea Systems, Inc., Richmond, VT; Harpoon Ventures LLC, Menlo Park, CA; Harris Corporation GCS, Palm Bay, FL; Hunter Mechanical Design LLC (HMD, LLC), Marion, MA; Hydroid, Inc., Pocasset, MA; In-Depth Engineering Corporation, Fairfax, VA; Innoveering LLC, Ronkonkoma, NY; iXblue Defense Systems, Inc., Natick, MA; Joel Drake Consulting LLC, San Diego, CA; JPAnalytics LLC, East Falmouth, MA; KMS Solutions LLC, Alexandria, VA; L3 Adaptive Methods, Inc., Centreville, VA; L3 OceanServer, Inc., Fall River, MA; LBI, Inc., Groton, CT; Left of Creative LLC, Wakefield, RI; Leidos, Inc., VA; Liquid Robotics, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA; Lockheed Martin Sippican, Inc., Marion, MA; Marine Acoustics, Inc., Middletown, RI; Marine Ventures International, Inc., Stuart, FL; Maritime Planning Associates, Inc., Newport, RI; McLaughlin Research Corporation, New London, CT; Metron, Inc., Reston, VA; MI Technical Solutions, Chesapeake, VA; Mide Technology Corporation, Medford, MA; MIKEL, Inc., Middletown, RI; Moog, Inc. Space & Defense Group, Elma, NY: MSI Transducers Corp., Littleton, MA; Nautilus Defense LLC, Pawtucket, RI; Navatek Ltd, Honolulu, HI; Navmar Applied Sciences, Warminster, PA; Northern Defense Industries LLC, Alexandria, VA; Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, Linthicum, MD; NOVA Power Solutions, Inc., Sterling, VA; Numurus LLC, Seattle, WA; Ocean Specialists, Inc., Stuart, FL; Oceaneering International, Inc., Hanover, MD; Oewaves, Inc., Pasadena, CA; Ordnance Technology Service, Inc., Mentor, OH; Pacific Science & Engineering, Inc. (PSE), San Diego, CA; Phelps2020, Inc., Knoxville, TN; Phoenix International Holdings, Inc., Largo, MD; Physical Optics Corporation, Torrance, CA; Physical Sciences, Inc., Andover, MA; Planck Aerosystems, Inc., San Diego, CA; Polaris Contract Manufacturing, Inc., Marion, MA; PowerDocks LLC, Fall River, MA; Presco, Inc., Woodbridge, CT; Progeny Systems Corporation, Manassas, VA; Prometheus, Inc., Sharon, MA; Psionic LLC, Hampton, VA; PURVIS Systems Incorporated, Middletown, RI; QinetiQ North America, Waltham, MA; QorTek, Inc., Williamsport, PA; QUASAR Federal Systems, Inc., San Diego, CA; Radiance Technologies, Inc., Huntsville, AL; Raytheon BBN Technologies Corp., Cambridge, MA; Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI; Remote Sensing Solutions, Barnstable, MA; Research Associates of Syracuse, Inc., Rome, NY; Ride, Inc., West Greenwich, RI; Riptide Autonomous Solutions LLC, Plymouth, MA; Rite-Solutions, Inc., Pawcatuck, CT; SA Photonics, Inc., Los Gatos, CA; Saab Defense and Security USA, East Syracuse, NY; SCI Technology, Inc., Huntsville, AL; Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Reston, VA; Scientific Solutions, Inc., Nashua, NH; SeaRobotics, Inc., Stuart, FL; Sechan Electronics, Inc., Lititz, PA; Signal Systems Corporation, Millersville, MD; Soar Technology, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI; Sonalysts, Inc., Waterford, CT; Sound & Sea Technology, Inc., Lynnwood, WA; Sparton Deleon Springs LLC, Deleon Springs, FL; Spatial Integrated Systems, Inc., Virginia Beach, VA; SRC, Inc., N. Syracuse, NY; Submergence Group LLC, Chester, CT; SubSeaSail LLC, San Diego, CA; Systems & Technology Research LLC, Woburn, MA; Systems Engineering Associates Corporation (dba SEA CORP), Middletown, RI; Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc., Alexandria, VA; Tampa Deep Sea Xplorers LLC, Tampa, FL; Tech Resources, Inc., Milford, NH; Teledyne Benthos, a Business Unit of Teledyne Instruments, Inc., North Falmouth, MA; Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc., Huntsville, AL; Tethers Unlimited, Inc., Bothell, WA; ThayerMahan, Inc., Groton, CT; The Aegis Technologies Group, Inc., Huntsville, AL; The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc., Cambridge, MA; The Metamorphosis Group, Inc., Vienna, VA; The Regents of the University of California, UC San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography (UCSD), La Jolla, CA; Thornton
The general area of UTIC's planned activity is conducting research, development and testing in cooperation with the Government leading to technology demonstrations in undersea and maritime technology applications and solutions through the following technology areas: Sensors and Sonar; Platform and Payload Integration; Undersea Distributed Networked Systems; Electronics/Optics/Materials; Passive Sensing; Undersea Satellites; Energy Storage and Release; Virtualization; Machine Learning; Threat Monitoring and Prediction; Cooperative Force Torpedo Defense; Undersea Warfare Analysis; Multi-Domain Fusion; Electronic Warfare; Distributed and Autonomous Sensors; USW Weapons and Autonomous Vehicles; Autonomy; Quantum Computing; Bio-Inspired Sensors; Environmental Sensing, Monitoring and Prediction; In-Situ Energy Sources; and Multi-Dimensional Display.
Notice is hereby given that, on October 4, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and CUI-JIP intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 22, 2018, CUI-JIP filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on September 6, 2018. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that on September 28, 2018, Pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and RIC-Americas intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 30, 2014, RIC-Americas filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on August 17, 2018. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on October 12, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Specifically, 8i Labs, Inc., Los Angeles, CA; Adaptive Phage Therapeutics, Inc. (Aphage), Gaithersburg, MD; Aleo BME, Inc., State College, PA; American Defense International (ADI), Washington, DC; Aptima, Inc., Woburn, MA; Atlantic Diving Supply, Inc. (ADS), Virginia Beach, VA; Benchmark Electronics, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ; BioMojo LLC, Cary, NC; BioSpyder Technologies, Inc., Carlsbad, CA; Brain Mapping Foundation, West Hollywood, CA; Brain Power, LLC, Cambridge, MA; BrainScope Company, Inc., Bethesda, MD; CAE Healthcare, Inc., Sarasota, FL; Carmell Therapeutics Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA; Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Cell Guidance Systems Ltd.,
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 MTEC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 9, 2014, MTEC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 3, 2018. A notice was published in the
Notice of registration.
The registrants listed below have applied for and been granted registration by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as bulk manufacturers of various classes of schedule I and II controlled substances.
The companies listed below applied to be registered as bulk manufacturers of various basic classes of controlled substances. Information on previously published notices is listed in the table below. No comments or objections were submitted for these notices.
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of these registrants to manufacture the applicable basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated each of the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing each company's physical security systems, verifying each company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing each company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the DEA has granted a registration as a bulk manufacturer to the above listed companies.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before January 2, 2019.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on September 13, 2018, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Buildings 1-5 & 7-14, 1440 Olympic Drive, Athens, Georgia 30601 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the above-listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers.
On October 25, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Amended Consent Decree with the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands in the lawsuit entitled
The original Consent Decree resolved the Clean Air Act violations as alleged in the Complaint filed by the United States on October 30, 2014. The violations alleged in the Complaint with respect to VIWAPA's St. Thomas facility include VIWAPA's failure to properly operate and/or maintain its water injection systems on its gas turbine units, failure to operate in compliance with NO
The Consent Decree, entered by the Court on September 30, 2016, requires VIWAPA to generate a high percentage of its KWh from liquid propane gas or liquid natural gas and renewables, to implement a spare parts inventory program, to control NO
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environmental and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $22.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
U.S. Marshals Service, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until December 3, 2018.
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any other additional information, please contact Nicole Timmons either by mail at CG-3, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20530-0001, by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Consumer Expenditure Surveys: Quarterly Interview and Diary,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before December 3, 2018.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-BLS, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the Consumer Expenditure Surveys: Quarterly Interview and Diary information collection. The BLS uses the Consumer Expenditure Surveys to gather information on expenditures, income, and other related subjects. The data is updated periodically in the national Consumer Price Index. In addition, the data is used by a variety of researchers in academia, government agencies, and the private sector. The data is collected from a national probability sample of households designed to represent the total civilian non-institutional population. The Census Authorizing Statute and BLS Authorizing Statute authorize this information collection.
This ICR has been characterized as a revision, because of several Quarterly Interview questions will be modified. These changes include collapsing the items codes for attachable campers and unattached campers into a single item code; regrouping the clothing sections for easier understanding by the respondent such as adding a
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Legal Services Corporation.
Notice; correction.
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) published a notice in the
Reginald Haley, Office of Program Performance, at (202) 295-1545, or
In the
The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on October 31, 2018, at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Three White Flint North, 11601 Landsdown Street, Conference Rooms 1C3—1C5, North Bethesda, MD 20852.
The meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Quynh Nguyen (Telephone 301-415-5844 or email:
Information regarding changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with
If attending this meeting, please enter through the Three White Flint North building, 11601 Landsdown Street, North Bethesda, MD 20852. After registering with Security, please proceed to conference Room 1C3-1C5, located directly behind the security desk on the first floor. You may contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 301-415-6702) for assistance or to be escorted to the meeting room.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17a-12 is the reporting rule tailored specifically for over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives dealers registered with the Commission, and Part IIB of Form X-17A-5, the Financial and Operational Combined Uniform Single (“FOCUS”) Report, is the basic document for reporting the financial and operational condition of OTC derivatives dealers. Rule 17a-12 requires registered OTC derivatives dealers to file Part IIB of the FOCUS Report quarterly. Rule 17a-12 also requires that OTC derivatives dealers file audited financial statements annually.
The reports required under Rule 17a-12 provide the Commission with information used to monitor the operations of OTC derivatives dealers and to enforce their compliance with the Commission's rules. These reports also enable the Commission to review the business activities of OTC derivatives dealers and to anticipate, where possible, how these dealers may be affected by significant economic events.
There are currently three registered OTC derivatives dealers. The staff expects that three additional firms will register as OTC derivatives dealers within the next three years. The staff estimates that the average amount of time necessary to prepare and file the quarterly reports required by the rule is eighty hours per OTC derivatives dealer
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The title for the collection of information is “Form N-6 (17 CFR 239.17c and 274.11d) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
The Commission estimates that approximately 388 registration statements (8 initial registration statements plus 380 post-effective
The Commission estimates that the cost burden for preparing an initial Form N-6 filing is $26,169 per portfolio and the current cost burden for preparing a post-effective amendment to a previously effective registration statement is $9,493 per portfolio. The Commission estimates that, on an annual basis, 8 portfolios will be referenced in an initial Form N-6 and 380 portfolios will be referenced in a post-effective amendment of Form N-6. Thus, the total cost burden allocated to Form N-6 would be $3,816,692.
The information collection requirements imposed by Form N-6 are mandatory. Responses to the collection of information will not be kept confidential. Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Charles Riddle, Acting Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 6, 2018.
The meeting will be held at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Roisman, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
83 FR 54411, October 29, 2018
Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
The Open Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., has been cancelled.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact Brent J. Fields of the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to (a) relocate rules from the Phlx's Pricing Schedule (“Pricing Schedule”) and current Rule 909 to the Exchange's rulebook's (“Rulebook”) shell structure,
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange, as part of its continued effort to promote efficiency and the conformity of its processes with those of the Affiliated Exchanges, and the goal of harmonizing and uniformizing its rules, proposes to relocate the Pricing Schedule rules and Rule 909 to the Exchange's shell structure. Specifically, the Exchange will relocate the Pricing Schedule rules described below respectively into the Equity 7 and Options 7 sections of the shell structure (both named “Pricing Schedule”).
In addition, the Exchange proposes to delete the current Pricing Schedule's Table of Contents and the obsolete term “Phlx XL II” at current Chapter VI., A. Moreover, the Exchange proposes not to relocate current Chapters X, XI, and XII, since these are reserved rules that do not contain any rule text. Finally, the Exchange proposes to make conforming cross-reference changes throughout the Rulebook.
The Exchange proposes to eliminate the existing Table of Contents in the Phlx Pricing Schedule. The Table of Contents is unnecessary. The website where the Phlx rules are listed
The Exchange proposes to adopt, under Equity 7, Section 1 (“General Provisions”) a modified version of the current introductory text in the Pricing Schedule. Proposed Equity 7, Section 1(a) will refer to the calculation of fees in the Exchange, with a specific reference to the exception concerning disputes of Nasdaq PSX fees and proprietary data feed fees. The Exchange notes that the relocated text will not include the reference to disputes concerning fees for co-location services. The co-location services rule was recently moved to the General 8 section of the Rulebook
All billing disputes must be submitted to the Exchange in writing and must be accompanied by supporting documentation. All disputes must be submitted no later than sixty (60) days after receipt of a billing invoice, except for disputes concerning Nasdaq PSX fees and proprietary data feed fees. The Exchange calculates fees on a trade date basis. Only members may submit billing disputes.”
The Exchange proposes also to relocate to Equity 7, Section 1(b) the portion of the Pricing's Schedule's Preface that applies only to equities. This will include the paragraph that reads “For PSX Equities.” The relocated text has no application to transactions in options and, therefore, will not be included in Options 7, Section 1(b) described below.
The Exchange proposes also to relocate and renumber Phlx Rule 909 under both Equity 7, Section 2 and Options 7, Section 2 (both named “Collection of Exchange Fees and Other Claims”). Rule 909 permits Phlx to collect undisputed or final fees, fines, charges and/or other monetary sanctions or other monies due and owing to the Exchange or other charges related to Rule 924.
Next, the Exchange proposes to relocate and renumber current Pricing Schedule's Chapter VIII (“NASDAQ PSX FEES”) as Equity 7, Section 3 in the shell structure. The text of this rule will not be substantively changed other than to update the capitalization of its title.
Today, Chapter VI of the Phlx Pricing Schedule consists of rule text applicable to both equities and options. Specifically, references to floor pricing apply to the options market, as only that market has a trading floor. In Chapter VI, A. (“Permit and Registration Fees”), the paragraph that describes PSX Only Permit Fees describes an equity fee. The “Application Fee,” “Application Fee for Lapsed Applications,” “Transfer of Affiliation Fee,” “Account Fee,” “Initiation Fee” and “Permit Fees” apply to both equities and options. Finally, the “Inactive Nominee Fee” and the “Clerk Fee” are floor fees and therefore apply to options only.
The Exchange proposes to adopt Equity 7, Section 4 (“Membership Fees”), A. (“Permit and Registration Fees”) by adapting text from current Chapter VI, A. of the Pricing Schedule. Specifically, as previously noted, Equity 7, Section 4, A. will consist of the following fees: “Application Fee,” “Application Fee for Lapsed Applications,” “Transfer of Affiliation Fee,” “Account Fee,” “Initiation Fee,” and “Permit Fees.” Proposed Equity 7, Section 4 will also include text from the current rule which is only applicable to PSX transactions; thus, the Exchange proposes to relocate the text under the subheading “PSX Only Permit Fees.”
Additionally, the Exchange will relocate the callout (“*”) and respective
The Exchange notes that it will not relocate the obsolete term “Phlx XL II” used in the footnote described above; the term is a legacy reference and its removal will not affect the rights of prospective or existing members of the Exchange.
The Exchange will thus relocate and renumber the above-referenced rules as follows:
The Exchange proposes to adopt, under Options 7, Section 1(a), a modified version of the current introductory section in the Pricing Schedule. Proposed Options 7, Section 1(a) will refer to the calculation of fees in the Exchange, with a specific reference to the exception concerning disputes of proprietary data fees, which applies to transactions in options. The Exchange believes that this change will improve the readability of the rules relocated under the Options 7 title.
The Exchange also proposes to adopt under Options 7, Section 1(b) the text from the Pricing Schedule's Preface that applies only to transactions in options. Specifically, proposed Options 7, Section 1(b) will contain the text that opens with “For Phlx Options”; the definitions of “Customer”; “Specialist”; “ROT, SQT and RSQT”; “Market Maker”; “Registered Option Trader”; “Streaming Quote Trader”; “Remote Streaming Quote Trader”; “Firm”; “Professional”; “Broker-Dealer”; “Joint Back Office”; “Common Ownership”; and “Non-Customer”; and the rules that apply to options transactions fees or rebates described under the subsection “For Purposes of Common Ownership Aggregation of Activity of Affiliated Members and Member Organizations,” including the terms “Appointed MM,” “Appointed OFP,” and “Affiliated Entity.”
The Exchange additionally proposes that Subsections A and B (respectively, “Mini Options Fees” and “Customer Rebate Program”) in the Pricing Schedule's Preface remain unchanged and be relocated to proposed Options 7, Section 1(b).
As previously explained, the Exchange proposes also to adopt a rule, under Options 7, Section 2, for the collection of undisputed fees or other monies identical to current Phlx Rule 909 (“Collection of Exchange Fees and Other Claims”), which will parallel the rule under Equity 7, Section 2.
The Exchange proposes also to relocate, renumber, and add the word “Section” to each of the following chapters in the Pricing Schedule: I (“Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in SPY”); II (“Multiply Listed Options Fees”), III (“Singly Listed Options”); IV (“Other Transaction Fees”); V (“Routing Fees”); VII (“Other Member Fees”); IX (“Proprietary Data Feed Fees”); and XIII (“Access and Redistribution Fee”).
With respect to the text in current Chapter VI of the Pricing Schedule, as previously explained, the Exchange proposes to adopt Options 7, Section 8, A. (“Permit and Registration Fees”) which will include text applicable to both equities and options (the “Application Fee,” “Application Fee for Lapsed Applications,” “Transfer of Affiliation Fee,” “Account Fee,” “Initiation Fee,” and “Permit Fees.”).
The Exchange proposes also to remove the callout (“*”) from the Application, Account, and Initiation fees' subheadings since such footnote is applicable to those who only apply for membership with PSX.
Moreover, the Exchange proposes to include under Options 7, Section 8, A. portions of text from Chapter VI which apply only to transactions in options (namely, “Phlx Permit Fees,” “Inactive Nominee Fee,” and “Clerk Fee”). The Exchange additionally proposes to relocate to Options 7, Section 8, subsections B. (“Streaming Quote Trader Fees”), C. (“Remote Market Maker Organization Fee”) and D. (“Remote Specialist Fee”) from current Chapter VI.
The proposed relocation of options rules can be summarized as follows:
The Exchange believes that the changes previously explained are non-substantive and that they will facilitate the use of the Rulebook by Members
The Exchange proposes Pricing Schedule's Chapters X, XI, and XII not to be relocated to the shell structure and that they be removed from the Rulebook. The aforementioned sections are currently marked as “Reserved” and their relocation to the shell structure is unnecessary since the Exchange may amend and create new rules if needed.
In connection with the changes described above, the Exchange proposes to update all cross-references in the Rulebook that direct the reader to the current location of the Pricing Schedule rules and/or any of their subsections.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes do not impose a burden on competition because, as previously stated, they (i) are of a non-substantive nature, (ii) are intended to harmonize the structure of the Exchange's rules with those of its Affiliated Exchanges, and (iii) are intended to organize the Rulebook in a way that it will ease the Members' and market participants' navigation and reading of the Equities' and Options' Pricing Schedules.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act” or “Act”)
The MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend Form G-45 under MSRB Rule G-45, on reporting of information on municipal fund securities,
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB 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 MSRB has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The MSRB proposes to refine and enhance certain of the investment option data that the MSRB collects under Rule G-45 from underwriters to 529 savings plans
Section 529 also established prepaid tuition plans. 26 U.S.C. 529(b)(1)(A)(i). Under a prepaid tuition plan, an investor may purchase tuition credits or certificates on behalf of a designated beneficiary, which entitle the beneficiary to the waiver or payment of qualified higher education expenses. Such credits or certificates generally are not viewed as being municipal securities, and dealers generally do not participate in the marketing of prepaid tuition plans.
Thus, the term “529 plans” includes 529 saving plans and prepaid tuition plans.
Rule G-45 requires brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (“dealers”) acting in the capacity as underwriters to 529 savings plans or ABLE programs to submit on a semi-annual or annual basis (in the case of performance data) certain information about the plans or programs they underwrite. That information includes plan or program descriptive information, assets, asset allocation information (at the investment option level), contributions, withdrawals, fee and cost structure, performance, and other information. Beginning with the reporting period ending June 30, 2015 (in the case of 529 savings plans) and June 30, 2018 (in the case of ABLE programs), underwriters to 529 savings plans or ABLE programs have reported such information electronically to the MSRB.
The collection of information under Rule G-45 is intended to protect investors, municipal entities and the public interest and prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices.
Throughout the seven reporting periods during which the MSRB has analyzed data submitted on Form G-45, the MSRB has observed anomalies in the data submitted under Investment Option information. Those anomalies related to the program management fee and, as discussed below under “New Investment Option Closing Date Data Element,” to investment options that closed during the reporting period. Form G-45, under the Investment Option information subsection “Program Management Fee,” requires that an underwriter report the program management fee (expressed as an annual percentage of 529 savings plan or ABLE program assets) assessed by the 529 savings plan or ABLE program. The program management fee typically is a separately identifiable percentage that is shown in the fee table for the 529 savings plan or ABLE program, but for some 529 savings plans and ABLE programs, this is not the case. Instead for those 529 savings plans or ABLE programs, the program management fee is assessed by the underlying mutual fund in which the investment option invests (this is typically done through a 529 or ABLE share class of the mutual fund). Underwriters for those 529 savings plans or ABLE programs generally report the program management fee as zero on Form G-45, and then may add explanatory information in the notes section of the form about the fee. That explanatory information, however, may or may not actually disclose the program management fee in a format that is typically used for comparison—
From time to time, an investment option offered in a 529 savings plan may close to new investors, but allow current account owners who have allocated account value to an investment option to continue to invest in that “closed” investment option. Alternatively, the 529 savings plan may close an investment option completely.
The MSRB sought public comment about providing additional data concerning the investment options offered in 529 savings plans and ABLE programs.
Form G-45 requires that underwriters annually report (i) total returns, including sales charges, (ii) total returns, excluding sales charges, and (iii) benchmark return percent for specified periods, including annualized or annual three-year percent. At the time the MSRB approved Form G-45, the College Savings Plans Network's (CSPN) voluntary disclosure principles that provide recommendations to the state entities that establish and maintain 529 savings plans (the “disclosure principles”)
According to CSPN, CSPN, the states that administer 529 plans (
The MSRB has determined that Form G-45, even without the three-year performance data, would continue to provide the MSRB with sufficient performance information to assist the MSRB with its analysis of 529 savings plans and ABLE programs. Therefore, because the MSRB believes that it will have sufficient performance information, it is no longer an appropriate regulatory burden and should be eliminated to avoid unnecessary costs.
The MSRB Section 15B(b)(2) of the Exchange Act
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act
The proposed rule change would help prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices. The proposed rule change would allow the MSRB to analyze data in a uniform format that would facilitate the (i) efficient and effective comparison among 529 savings plans and ABLE programs, (ii) evaluation of trends and differences, and (iii) identification of potential risks to investors that may affect those 529 savings plans and ABLE programs. The ability to identify trends and differences, also would enable the regulators that are charged with inspecting for compliance with and enforcing the MSRB's rules, as noted above, to better determine whether the 529 savings plan or ABLE program disclosure documents and marketing materials, which underwriters generally draft or participate in drafting, are consistent with the data submitted to the MSRB. Further, the ability to identify potential risks to investors from the Form G-45 data analysis would inform the MSRB with its development of rulemaking and interpretive guidance priorities with respect to MSRB regulated entities. Further, the ability to identify potential risks to investors from the Form G-45 data would inform other regulators with their development of their priorities for risk-based compliance examinations for such regulated entities. These enhanced oversight abilities, in turn, would help prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices.
The proposed rule change also would promote just and equitable principles of trade. For the same reasons that the proposed rule change would help prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, the proposed rule change also would promote just and equitable principles of trade.
In addition, the proposed rule change would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating municipal securities transactions. For the same reasons that the proposed rule change would help prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, the proposed rule change also would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating municipal securities transactions. In addition, as discussed under “Deletion of Three-Year Annual Performance Data Requirement,” the proposed rule change would make the collection of performance data under Form G-45 more consistent with what is required by other financial regulators and with current industry norms, and thereby also would foster regulatory coordination with persons engaged in regulating municipal securities transactions.
Moreover, the MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the MSRB's statutory obligation to protect investors and municipal entities. To fulfill this responsibility, it is necessary for the MSRB to have a complete and reliable data set about 529 savings plans and ABLE programs, including the investment options offered in those 529 savings plans and ABLE programs. The proposed rule change would provide the MSRB with additional meaningful data about the investment options offered in those plans or programs—specifically, the proposed rule change would clarify an existing data element relating to the program management fee and would add a data element in the form of a check the box to alert the MSRB about the closing of an investment option during the reporting period. This clarification and additional data element would facilitate the MSRB's ability to efficiently and effectively analyze the market for 529 savings plans and ABLE programs as well as to evaluate trends and differences among 529 savings plans and the ABLE programs. The MSRB believes that understanding the investment options and the costs associated with 529 savings plans and ABLE programs as well as the other data collected under Rule G-45 are basic requirements for regulation and necessary to assist the MSRB with its evaluation as to whether its regulatory scheme for dealers that sell interests in or underwrite ABLE programs and/or 529 savings plans is sufficient, or whether additional rulemaking is necessary to protect investors. Further, as previously noted, the information that would be collected by the proposed rule change would help the MSRB and other regulators that examine dealers prioritize their efforts with respect to those dealers that sell interests in or underwrite ABLE programs and 529 savings plans. Those other regulators may use this information to determine the nature or timing of risk-based dealer examinations. In addition, under the proposed rule change, the MSRB would no longer collect three-year performance data about the investment options and their related benchmarks, if any. As discussed under “Deletion of Three-Year Annual Performance Data Requirement,” the proposed rule change thereby would make the collection of performance data under Form G-45 more consistent with what is required by other financial regulators and with current industry norms. Thus, the MSRB believes that the information to be collected by the proposed rule change would better enable the MSRB to protect investors in these programs and plans and the municipal entities that offer 529 savings plans and ABLE programs.
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act
The need for the proposed rule change to Form G-45 arises from the MSRB's oversight of dealers acting as underwriters to 529 savings plans and ABLE programs. The MSRB believes that this information is required to ensure effective regulation of dealers that sell interests in and underwriters to 529 savings plans and ABLE programs. Since certain data elements are not disclosed or readily available in some instances, rulemaking is required to bring the information to light. Specifically,
1. In certain instances, the program management fee is included in the total fund operating expenses assessed by the underlying mutual fund and thus is not separately disclosed. This makes comparing and analyzing program management fees across plans difficult; and
2. From time to time, an investment option may either close to new investors but allow current account owners to continue to invest or may close to new investors or all investors completely. Therefore, investment data submitted for that investment option may not accurately portray the real annualized return.
The proposed rule change to FormG-45 would clarify the requirement of an existing data element, the program management fee, and the collection of an additional data element (check-the-boxes) about the investment option closing date information to remedy the above concerns. The MSRB can therefore remove the burden on submitters of unnecessary follow-ups for what is, in reality, accurate albeit incomplete data. In addition, the proposed rule change would delete the requirements to report three-year annualized performance data for each investment option and any related benchmark.
The MSRB has evaluated alternatives to the proposed rule change with regard to obtaining some of the above information without the proposed rule change to Form G-45. However, none of these alternatives is preferable to the proposed requirements. For example, the program management fee, as an annual percentage of assets, is already submitted by the underlying mutual funds in disclosure documents to the SEC. However, to obtain the total program management fee for an entire municipal security fund through a review of disclosure documents, the MSRB would have to manually sift through the disclosures for all underlying funds and calculate the total program management fee based on a weighted-average of assets under management for each fund. For regulatory purposes, the MSRB needs to efficiently obtain a consistent set of uniform, reliable and relevant information about 529 savings plans and ABLE programs in order to compare across plans. Another alternative to the proposed rule change to Form G-45 is a manual review of information in plan disclosure documents submitted to the MSRB's Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA®)
The benefits from collecting program management fee and investment option closing date data should exceed the costs. These benefits include enhanced regulatory oversight of underwriters to 529 savings plans and ABLE programs and improved understanding of the 529 savings plan and ABLE program marketplace. More importantly, since the remaining data elements are readily available to submitters, the costs associated with the current recommendation would be relatively minor.
Specifically, the program management fee expressed as an annual percentage of assets for each share class is already disclosed to the SEC, as the SEC-registered underlying mutual fund in which an investment option invests is required to disclose the percentage of the program management fee in the disclosure documents that it submits to the SEC. The costs of the submission process would be minor. Likewise, the costs of submitting the investment option closing date would be negligible as the issuer supplements the disclosure documents for the 529 savings plan with that information.
In addition to voicing their opinions on the MSRB's proposed clarification of and new data element requirements, commenters also requested that the MSRB consider eliminating the current requirement to report three-year annualized performance information under Rule G-45, as the industry standard no longer includes the three-year returns information as a part of the performance disclosure.
In the aggregate, the MSRB believes that the proposed rule change would provide a range of benefits, including reducing regulatory inefficiencies to facilitate an efficient and effective regulatory oversight of relevant underwriters and dealers. Although the proposed rule change may impose some costs on underwriters and/or require them to revise certain business practices and spend additional resources. The MSRB believes that the total costs would be less than the aggregate benefits that would accrue over time to the market.
The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change would facilitate regulatory oversight of the municipal fund security market and promote capital formation by informing rulemaking, preventing fraud, and protecting investors. At present, the MSRB is unable to quantitatively evaluate the magnitude of efficiency gains or losses, or the impact on capital formation, but believes that the benefits outweigh the costs over the long term, as the costs of compliance are expected to be minor. Additionally, in the MSRB's view, the proposed rule change does not result in an undue burden on competition since it would apply to all underwriters of 529 savings plans and ABLE programs equally.
Competition, however, may be adversely affected if, to compensate for costs and regulatory burden, underwriters would raise the fees charged to issuers, resulting in issuers refraining from using dealers to engage directly with potential investors, or
The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change would not impose an unnecessary or inappropriate regulatory burden on small regulated entities, as the burden on underwriters should be proportional to their business activities in relation to 529 savings plans and ABLE programs.
The MSRB sought public comment about providing additional data concerning the investment options offered in 529 savings plans and ABLE programs.
Although commenters generally opposed any amendment to Form G-45, one commenter, SIFMA, stated that it generally supports the proposed rule change relating to the program management fee, however, SIFMA gave this support while also sharing the concerns about this item expressed by the ICI. Other commenters stated that the program management fee could be proprietary,
The MSRB continues to believe that it is important to receive information about the program management fee in a uniform manner. With its adoption of Rule G-45 and Form G-45, the MSRB recognized the importance of receiving consistent and reliable information about 529 savings plans for the MSRB to fulfill its mission to protect investors. This information allows the MSRB, as well as other regulators, to analyze the data in a format that can be sorted to foster a better understanding of the 529 savings plan industry. Without that information, the analytical process is not as efficient as it otherwise could be.
Moreover, the SEC-registered underlying mutual fund in which an investment option invests is required to disclose the percentage of the program management fee in the disclosure documents that it submits to the SEC. The MSRB has obtained this information through such a review. The MSRB submits that the percentage of the program management fee is not proprietary, as it is disclosed to the SEC in public documents. For that same reason, the MSRB believes that underwriters would incur minimal costs, if any, if they were to report the percentage of the program management fee separately.
As far as the double counting of the program management fee, the MSRB currently has the analytical tools necessary to ensure that the percentage of the program management fee is not double counted. Underwriters could simply continue to alert the MSRB in the notes section of Form G-45, that the program management fee is assessed by the underlying mutual fund in which the investment option invests. The MSRB then would take the note into consideration when it analyzes the underlying fund expenses for an investment option.
Four commenters submitted comments about providing information about an investment option closing date. In general, commenters stated that they did not oppose the proposal, and that the information would be easily reportable, but that reporting such information may increase costs to the 529 savings plan, and they were not certain why the information would be meaningful to the MSRB.
The MSRB believes that having information about the investment option closing date would enhance the ability of the MSRB to analyze investment option data in a timely and efficient manner. As commenters acknowledged, underwriters have this information (a 529 savings plan must supplement its program disclosure booklet with this information in a timely manner to comply with its obligations under the federal securities laws). As noted under “Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition,” the MSRB believes that providing an investment option closing date should not materially increase costs for underwriters.
As noted under “Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change,” Form G-45 requires that underwriters annually report (i) total returns, including sales charges, (ii) total returns, excluding sales charges, and (iii) benchmark return percent for specified periods, including annualized or annual three-year percent. At the time the MSRB approved Form G-45, the disclosure principles which commenters stated were the industry norm in other rulemakings, recommended that such disclosure be made.
The MBRB agrees with commenters' suggestion, and the proposed rule change would delete this requirement. Form G-45, even without the three-year performance data, would continue to provide the MSRB with sufficient performance information to assist the MSRB with its analysis of the 529 savings plan and ABLE program industries. Further, the suggestion would result in cost savings for those industries.
Commenters confirmed that there is limited burden associated with providing investment option closing date information to the MSRB. As to the program management fee, commenters generally agree that it would be less burdensome to report than the benchmark performance and investment return data elements. While the MSRB agrees with ICI and other commenters
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such 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.
For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”),
ICE Clear Europe proposes to make certain updates to its Recovery Plan and Wind-Down Plan. The revisions do not involve any changes to the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Rules or Procedures.
In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for
ICE Clear Europe is proposing to make certain updates and amendments to its Recovery Plan and Wind-Down Plan. The amendments principally reflect certain changes in the Clearing House's treasury arrangements and related service providers, such as custody banks, investment agents and settlement banks, that are described in the current Recovery Plan and Wind-Down Plan.
Specifically, the discussion of Treasury Services in the Recovery Plan has been revised to reflect that ICE Clear Europe has appointed a number of concentration banks, custodians and APS banks to support the treasury function, and to reflect that the current list of such persons from time to time is made available on the Clearing House website. The amendments accordingly remove from the Recovery Plan certain references to specific banks.
Similarly, lists of key service providers have been updated to refer to the general categories of investment agents, custodians, custody agents, APS banks and central banks, to avoid the need to mention specific institutions in these categories and accordingly facilitate keeping the plan up to date. Corresponding changes have been made in appendices to the Recovery Plan to update references to various institutions that provide treasury services to ICE Clear Europe, including an additional investment agent. In ICE Clear Europe's view, the amendments will facilitate use by the Clearing House of additional service providers, consistent with other ICE Clear Europe policies and procedures, which will help the Clearing House appropriately manage credit, operational and other risks from treasury operations.
Similar updates are proposed to be made to the Wind-Down Plan. The discussion concerning termination of various service agreements during wind-down has been revised to refer more generally to the appointed investment agents, custodians, custody agents and settlement banks that may be used by the Clearing House at the time (rather than referring to specific institutions). The revisions also refer to the termination provisions (including notice requirements) of the particular agreements between ICE Clear Europe and those institutions. These amendments will facilitate keeping the Wind-Down Plan up to date as treasury service providers change from time to time. The amendments also add references to the Dutch National Bank as an additional central bank used as a concentration bank.
ICEU believes that the proposed amendments are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
The amendments to the Recovery Plan and Wind-Down Plan are designed to update certain provisions relating to treasury arrangements of the Clearing House, principally to address changes in treasury service providers (such as custody banks, settlement banks and investment agents) currently referred to in the plans. The changes will also facilitate keeping the Recovery and Wind-Down Plan up to date as certain treasury service providers change from time to time, and facilitate use by the Clearing House of additional service providers to manage risks from treasury operations. The amendments do not otherwise affect the substantive provisions and procedures detailed in the Recovery Plan or the Wind-Down Plan for addressing recovery or wind-down as a result of credit losses, liquidity shortfalls, losses from general business risk or other losses, including the triggers for invoking recovery or wind-down procedures. The amendments also do not affect the recovery and wind-down tools and options available to the Clearing House to address severe loss events, or the planned sequence or scope of recovery or wind-down actions that ICE Clear Europe may take in a loss scenario. As a result, in ICE Clear Europe's view, the amended Recovery Plan and Wind-Down Plan will continue to satisfy the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed amendments would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The amendments update certain provisions relating to service providers for Clearing House treasury operations, and do not otherwise change the substantive provisions of the Recovery Plan or the Wind-Down Plan. The amendments do not change the rights or obligations of
Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission of any comments received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form N-Q (17 CFR 249.332 and 274.130) is a reporting form used by registered management investment companies, other than small business investment companies registered on Form N-5 (“funds”), under Section 30(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
We estimate that there are 11,960 funds required to file reports on Form N-Q. Based on staff experience and conversations with industry representatives, we estimate that it takes approximately 26 hours per fund to prepare reports on Form N-Q annually. Accordingly, we estimate that the total annual burden associated with Form N-Q is 310,960 hours (26 hours per fund × 11,960 funds) per year.
The estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 23c-3 (17 CFR 270.23c-3) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
The requirement that the fund send a notification to shareholders of each offer is intended to ensure that a fund provides material information to shareholders about the terms of each offer. The requirement that copies be sent to the Commission is intended to enable the Commission to monitor the fund's compliance with the notification requirement. The requirement that the shareholder notification be attached to Form N-23c-3 is intended to ensure that the fund provides basic information necessary for the Commission to process the notification and to monitor the fund's use of repurchase offers. The requirement that the fund describe its current policy on repurchase offers and the results of recent offers in the annual shareholder report is intended to provide shareholders current information about the fund's repurchase policies and its recent experience. The requirement that the board approve and review written procedures designed to maintain portfolio liquidity is intended to ensure that the fund has enough cash or liquid securities to meet its repurchase obligations, and that written procedures are available for review by shareholders and examination by the Commission. The requirement that the fund file advertisements and sales literature as if it were an open-end fund is intended to facilitate the review of these materials by the Commission or FINRA to prevent incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading disclosure about the special characteristics of a closed-end fund that makes periodic repurchase offers.
The Commission staff estimates that 33 funds make use of rule 23c-3 annually, including eight funds that are relying upon rule 23c-3 for the first time. The Commission staff estimates that on average a fund spends 89 hours annually in complying with the requirements of the rule and Form N-23c-3, with funds relying upon rule 23c-3 for the first time incurring an additional one-time burden of 28 hours. The Commission therefore estimates the total annual hour burden of the rule's and form's paperwork requirements to be 3,161 hours. In addition to the burden hours, the Commission staff estimates that the average yearly cost to each fund that relies on rule 23c-3 to print and mail repurchase offers to shareholders is about $31,184.88. The Commission estimates total annual cost is therefore about $1,029,101.
Estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule and form is mandatory only for those funds that rely on the rule in order to repurchase shares of the fund. The information provided to the Commission on Form N-23c-3 will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
Notice is hereby given that, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.
Section 22(e) of the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-22(e)] (“Act”) generally prohibits funds, including money market funds, from suspending the right of redemption, and from postponing the payment or satisfaction upon redemption of any redeemable security for more than seven days. The provision was designed to prevent funds and their investment advisers from interfering with the redemption rights of shareholders for improper purposes, such as the preservation of management fees. Although section 22(e) permits funds to postpone the date of payment or satisfaction upon redemption for up to seven days, it does not permit funds to suspend the right of redemption for any amount of time, absent certain specified circumstances or a Commission order.
Rule 22e-3 under the Act [17 CFR 270.22e-3] exempts money market funds from section 22(e) to permit them to suspend redemptions in order to facilitate an orderly liquidation of the fund. Specifically, rule 22e-3 permits a money market fund to suspend redemptions and postpone the payment of proceeds pending board-approved liquidation proceedings if: (i) The fund's board of directors, including a majority of disinterested directors, determines pursuant to § 270.2a-7(c)(8)(ii)(C) that the extent of the deviation between the fund's amortized cost price per share and its current net asset value per share calculated using available market quotations (or an appropriate substitute that reflects current market conditions) may result in material dilution or other unfair results to investors or existing shareholders; (ii) the fund's board of directors, including a majority of disinterested directors, irrevocably approves the liquidation of the fund; and (iii) the fund, prior to suspending redemptions, notifies the Commission of its decision to liquidate and suspend redemptions. Rule 22e-3 also provides an exemption from section 22(e) for registered investment companies that own shares of a money market fund pursuant to section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Act (“conduit funds”), if the underlying money market fund has suspended redemptions pursuant to the rule. A conduit fund that suspends redemptions in reliance on the exemption provided by rule 22e-3 is required to provide prompt notice of the suspension of redemptions to the Commission. Notices required by the rule must be provided by electronic mail, directed to the attention of the Director of the Division of Investment Management or the Director's designee.
Commission staff estimates that, on average, one money market fund would break the buck and liquidate every six years.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms.
Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on the rule. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The collection of information is entitled: “Form N-4 (17 CFR 239.17b) under the Securities Act of 1933 and (17 CFR 274.11c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, registration statement of separate accounts organized as unit investment trust.” Form N-4 is the form used by insurance company separate accounts organized as unit investment trusts that offer variable annuity contracts to register as investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
The purpose of Form N-4 is to meet the filing and disclosure requirements of the Securities Act and the Investment Company Act and to enable filers to provide investors with information necessary to evaluate an investment in a security. The information required to be filed with the Commission permits verification of compliance with securities law requirements and assures the public availability and dissemination of the information.
The estimated annual number of filings on Form N-4 is 35 initial registration statements and 1,326 post-effective amendments. The estimated average number of portfolios per filing is one, both for initial registration statements and post-effective amendments on Form N-4. Accordingly, the estimated number of portfolios referenced in initial Form N-4 filings annually is 35 and the estimated number of portfolios referenced in post-effective amendment filings on Form N-4 annually is 1,326. The estimate of the annual hour burden for Form N-4 is approximately 278.5 hours per initial registration statement and 197.25 hours per post-effective amendment, for a total of 271,301 hours ((35 initial registration statements × 278.5 hours) + (1,326 post-effective amendments × 197.25 hours)).
The current estimated annual cost burden for preparing an initial Form N-4 filing is $24,858 per portfolio and the current estimated annual cost burden for preparing a post-effective amendment filing on Form N-4 is $23,561 per portfolio. The Commission estimates that, on an annual basis, 35 portfolios will be referenced in initial Form N-4 filings and 1,326 portfolios will be referenced in post-effective amendment filings on Form N-4. Thus, the estimated total annual cost burden allocated to Form N 4 would be $32,111,916 ((35 × $24,858) + (1,326 × $23,561)).
Providing the information required by Form N-4 is mandatory. Responses will not be kept confidential. Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Charles Riddle, Acting Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notification of changes to Development Company Program; request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is changing the job creation or retention requirements under its Development Company Loan Program (504 Loan Program) by increasing the dollar amounts used in calculating the number of jobs that must be created or retained for each 504 Project and for the portfolio average of each Certified Development Company. In addition, SBA is designating additional areas for application of the higher portfolio average.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. SBA-2018-0010, by any of the following methods: (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
SBA will post all comments on
Babak Hosseini, Finance and Loan Specialist, Office of Financial Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration; telephone: 202-205-7076; email:
The 504 Loan Program is an SBA financing program authorized under Title V of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (the SBIAct), 15 U.S.C. 695
To qualify for financing under the 504 Loan Program, each 504 Project must satisfy one of the economic development objectives or public policy goals set forth in sections 501(d)(1) through (3) of the SBIAct. Under section 501(d)(1), a Project is eligible for 504 financing if it creates job opportunities within two years of completion of the Project or if it preserves jobs attributable to the Project. To satisfy this objective under current requirements, each 504 Project must create or preserve one job for every $65,000 guaranteed by SBA; in the case of a small manufacturing Project, the amount is $100,000.
If the Project is eligible for financing under one of the objectives or goals set forth in section 501(d)(2) or (3), the Project need not satisfy the job creation or preservation criteria described above, but the CDC's overall portfolio of outstanding debentures must meet or exceed the job creation or preservation criteria of one job for every $65,000 guaranteed by SBA.
In the application for a loan under the 504 Loan Program, the borrower enters the number of jobs to be created or retained as a result of the Project and the CDC verifies that the Project meets the job creation or retention requirements. In addition, the job impact data is entered into SBA's database, and the application data combined with data from annual CDC reports is used to report the total number of jobs created or retained.
The SBIAct authorizes SBA to develop the job creation or job preservation criteria that apply to the 504 Loan Program.
The standard of one job for every $65,000 guaranteed by SBA, which applies to both individual Projects and to the CDC's overall portfolio average, has been in effect since it was adopted in 2009.
Although the job creation or retention standards for the 504 Loan Program have not been increased since 2009, and in some cases earlier, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers has increased 19% from 2009 through August 2018 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. Accordingly, pursuant to 13 CFR 120.829(a) and 120.861, SBA is modifying the Job Opportunity requirements as follows:
(1) A Project must create or retain one Job Opportunity per $75,000 guaranteed by SBA except that, in the case of a Project of a small manufacturer, the Project must create or retain one Job Opportunity per $120,000 guaranteed by SBA;
(2) For Projects that are eligible under 13 CFR 120.862, “Other economic development objectives,” a CDC's portfolio must reflect an average of one Job Opportunity for every $75,000 guaranteed by SBA; and
(3) For Projects in Alaska, Hawaii, State-designated enterprise zones, empowerment zones and enterprise communities, labor surplus areas (as determined by the Secretary of Labor), and for other areas designated by SBA, the CDC's portfolio may average not more than $85,000 per job created or retained.
In addition, pursuant to section 501(e)(3) of the SBIAct, 15 U.S.C.
SBA has determined that the changes described in this Notice should apply immediately to any 504 Loan that is approved on or after November 2, 2018 in order to give CDCs and small business applicants the benefits of these changes as soon as possible and because neither the new job creation/retention requirements nor the additional areas designated for application of the higher portfolio average will adversely affect either CDCs or their small business applicants.
SBA invites public comments on these new job creation or preservation standards and the designation of additional areas for application of the higher portfolio average described above. Please clearly identify paper and electronic comments as “Public Comments on 504 Loan Program's Job Opportunity Requirements, Docket No. SBA-2018-0010” and submit them by one of the methods identified in the
15 U.S.C. 695(d); 13 CFR 120.829(a) and 120.861.
Office of the Commissioner, Social Security Administration (SSA).
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act, we are issuing public notice of our intent to modify an existing system of records entitled, Assignment and Correspondence Tracking (ACT) System (60-0001), last published in full on January 11, 2006. This notice publishes details of the proposed updates as set forth below under the caption,
The system of records notice (SORN) is applicable upon its publication in today's
The public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress may comment on this publication by writing to the Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, SSA, Room G-401 West High Rise, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, or through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at
Tristin Dorsey, Government Information Specialist, Privacy Implementation Division, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, SSA, Room G-401 West High Rise, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, telephone: (410) 965-2950, email:
We are modifying the system of records name from ACT System, SSA, Office of the Commissioner, to the Electronic Management of Assignments and Correspondence (EMAC) to accurately reflect the system name, hereinafter referred to as EMAC. We are also modifying the notice throughout to correct miscellaneous stylistic formatting and typographical errors of the previously published Notice, and to ensure the language reads consistently across multiple systems.
We are modifying the system manager to clarify the name of the office and specifying in the categories of records that correspondence may be received in all agency offices. We are revising the categories of individuals and explaining how the records are retrieved. We are also adding new routine uses to clarify that records may be provided to the Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), for auditing purposes, to contractors and other Federal agencies for the purpose of assisting SSA in the efficient administration of its programs, and to other Federal agencies and entities for the purpose of assisting in breach responses. The entire notice is being republished for ease of reference.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), we have provided a report to OMB and Congress on this new system of records.
Electronic Management of Assignments and Correspondence, 60-0001.
Unclassified.
Social Security Administration, Office of the Commissioner, Robert M. Ball Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401.
Social Security Administration, Chief of Staff, Office of the Commissioner, Robert M. Ball Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Sections 205 and 1631 of the Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 405) and (42 U.S.C. 1383).
We will use the information in this system to assist us in supporting agency objectives to track, manage, and respond to external correspondence received from members of the public, the media, the White House, Congress, and other Federal agencies that require information or a response from SSA. We will also use this system to track and manage correspondence and assignments within SSA, and use the system to make assignments to agency employees to respond to the external requests. The system is an internal web-based system allowing authorized employees at all organizational levels to electronically access, create, assign, and process correspondence from the receipt of an inquiry through its completed response.
Individuals who request information directly from us (
This system maintains incoming or outgoing correspondence received, created, or compiled in response to external or internal requests for information, or assignments by individuals within or external to the agency. Information in the correspondence may include the name of the claimant; the name of the individual submitting the inquiry; the date of the correspondence; the date received in SSA; the SSA component responsible for responding to the inquiry; and a description of the inquiry or action needed.
We obtain information in this system of records primarily from the authorized employees who scan the correspondence into the system, create the assignments, and respond to inquiries. This system does not pull information from other agency systems.
We will disclose records pursuant to the following routine uses; however, we will not disclose any information defined as “return or return information” under 26 U.S.C. 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), unless authorized by a statute, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), or IRS regulations.
1. To a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that office made on behalf of, and at the request of, the subject of the record or a third party acting on the subject's behalf.
2. To the Office of the President in response to an inquiry received from that office made on behalf of, and at the request of, the subject of record or a third party acting on the subject's behalf.
3. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
4. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), a court or other tribunal, or another party before such court or tribunal, when
(a) SSA, or any component thereof; or
(b) any SSA employee in his/her official capacity; or
(c) any SSA employee in his/her individual capacity where DOJ (or SSA where it is authorized to do so) has agreed to represent the employee; or
(d) the United States or any agency thereof where SSA determines the litigation is likely to affect SSA or any of its components,
is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and SSA determines that the use of such records by DOJ, a court or other tribunal, or another party before such tribunal, is relevant and necessary to the litigation, provided, however, that in each case, the agency determines that disclosure of the records to DOJ, court or other tribunal, or another party is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
5. To student volunteers, individuals working under a personal services contract, and other workers who technically do not have the status of Federal employees, when they are performing work for SSA, as authorized by law, and they need access to PII in SSA records in order to perform their assigned agency functions.
6. To Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies and private security contractors as appropriate, information necessary:
(a) To enable them to protect the safety of SSA employees and customers, the security of SSA workplace, and the operation of SSA facilities; or
(b) to assist investigations or prosecutions with respect to activities that affect such safety and security or activities that disrupt the operation of SSA facilities.
7. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
(a) SSA suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of this system of records;
(b) SSA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, SSA (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and
(c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with SSA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
8. To the IRS, Department of Treasury, for the purpose of auditing SSA's compliance with the safeguard provisions of the IRC of 1986, as amended.
9. To contractors and other Federal agencies, as necessary, for the purpose of assisting SSA in the efficient administration of its programs. We will disclose information under this routine use only in situations in which SSA may enter into a contractual or similar agreement with a third party to assist in accomplishing an agency function relating to this system of records.
10. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when SSA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in:
(a) Responding to a suspected or confirmed breach; or
(b) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
We will maintain records in this system in paper and electronic form.
We will retrieve records in this system by the requestor's name, subject of control/assignment, or control/assignment description.
These records are currently unscheduled. We retain records in accordance with NARA approved records schedules. In accordance with NARA rules codified at 36 CFR 1225.16, we maintain unscheduled records until NARA approves an agency-specific records schedule or publishes a corresponding General Records Schedule.
We retain electronic and paper records with personal identifiers in secure storage areas accessible only by our authorized employees and contractors who have a need for the information when performing their official duties. Security measures include, but are not limited to, the use of codes and profiles, personal identification number and password, and personal identification verification cards. We restrict access to specific correspondence within the system based on assigned roles and authorized users assigned to specific component level
We annually provide our employees and contractors with appropriate security awareness training that includes reminders about the need to protect PII and the criminal penalties that apply to unauthorized access to, or disclosure of, PII (5 U.S.C. 552a(i)(1)). Furthermore, employees and contractors with access to databases maintaining PII must sign a sanctions document annually acknowledging their accountability for inappropriately accessing or disclosing such information.
Individuals may submit requests for information about whether this system contains a record about them by submitting a written request to the system manager at the above address, which includes their name or other information that may be in this system of records that will identify them. Individuals requesting notification of, or access to, a record by mail must include: (1) A notarized statement to us to verify their identity; or (2) must certify in the request that they are the individual they claim to be and that they understand that the knowing and willful request for, or acquisition of, a record pertaining to another individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense.
Individuals requesting notification of, or access to, records in person must provide their name or other information that may be in this system of records that will identify them, as well as provide an identity document, preferably with a photograph, such as a driver's license. Individuals lacking identification documents sufficient to establish their identity must certify in writing that they are the individual they claim to be and that they understand that the knowing and willful request for, or acquisition of, a record pertaining to another individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense.
These procedures are in accordance with our regulations at 20 CFR 401.40 and 401.45.
Same as record access procedures. Individuals should also reasonably identify the record, specify the information they are contesting, and state the corrective action sought and the reasons for the correction with supporting justification showing how the record is incomplete, untimely, inaccurate, or irrelevant. These procedures are in accordance with our regulations at 20 CFR 401.65(a).
Same as record access procedures. These procedures are in accordance with our regulations at 20 CFR 401.40 and 401.45.
None.
71 FR 1800, Assignment and Correspondence Tracking (ACT) System.
Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, Office of Income Security Programs, Social Security Administration (SSA).
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act, we are issuing public notice of our intent to modify an existing system of records, entitled Master Representative Payee File (60-0222), last published in full on April 22, 2013. This notice publishes details of the modified system as set forth under the caption,
The system of records notice (SORN) is applicable upon its publication in today's
The public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress may comment on this publication by writing to the Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, SSA, Room G-401 West High Rise, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, or through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at
Andrea Huseth, Government Information Specialist, Disclosure and Data Support Division, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, SSA, Room G-401 West High Rise, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, telephone: (410) 965-6868, email:
Social Security's representative payee program provides financial management for Social Security beneficiaries, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients, and Special Veterans Benefits recipients who are incapable of managing their benefits or payments. The representative payee's primary responsibility is to use the beneficiary's benefits or recipient's payments for the beneficiary's or recipient's current and foreseeable needs. The Strengthening Protections for Social Security Beneficiaries Act of 2018 (H.R. 4547, Pub. L. 115-165, hereafter referred to as Pub. L. 115-165) directs SSA to conduct background investigations on certain representative payees at least once every five years. Routine use #19 currently allows for the disclosure of representative payee information to third parties to obtain criminal history information. As of 2013, SSA's policy was to make such disclosures via routine use #19 at the time a representative payee applied to become a representative payee. We are notifying all current representative payees and future representative payee applicants (with some exceptions, discussed below) that SSA will begin, in accordance with Public Law 115-165, making such disclosures under routine use #19 both at the time of application and on a continuing basis at least once every five years. Beginning in 2019 for all current representative payees, SSA will make disclosures under routine use #19, and will do so at least once every five years. We may, however, exempt certain close family members serving as representative payees (including but not limited to the custodial parent of a minor beneficiary/recipient, spouse of a
We are modifying the authority for maintenance of the system to include Public Law 115-165. We are revising the category of records to specify that we will maintain records in support of representative payee reviews, including educational visits, in this system and to clarify that criminal history information may include records addressing inaccuracies (
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), we provided a report to OMB and Congress on this revised system of records.
Master Representative Payee File, 60-0222.
Unclassified.
Social Security Administration, Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235.
Social Security Administration, Deputy Commissioner for the Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235,
Sections 205(a), 205(j), 208, 807, 811, 1631(a), and 1632 of the Social Security Act, as amended, the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-203), and the Strengthening Protections for Social Security Beneficiaries Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-165).
We will use the information in this system to assist us in the selection process of a representative payee by enabling Social Security field offices to better screen applicants to determine their suitability to become and remain representative payees. We will also use the data for management information and workload projection purposes, and to prepare annual reports to Congress on representative payee activities.
This system maintains information about all representative payees and representative payee applicants, including persons whose certifications as representative payees have been revoked or terminated on or after January 1, 1991; persons who have been convicted of a violation of sections 208, 811, and 1632 of the Social Security Act, as amended; persons convicted under other statutes in connection with services as a representative payee, and others whose certification as a representative payee SSA has revoked due to misuse of funds paid under Title II, Title VIII, and Title XVI of the Social Security Act; persons who are acting or have acted as representative payees; representative payee applicants who were not selected to serve as representative payees; representative payee applicants who have been convicted of an offense resulting in more than one (1) year imprisonment; representative payees and representative payee applicants who have an outstanding felony warrant; organizational payees who have been authorized to collect a fee for their service; and beneficiaries, recipients, or claimants who are or may be served by representative payees.
This system maintains records that consist of the following:
1. Names and Social Security numbers (SSNs) (or employer identification numbers (EINs)) of representative payees whose certifications for payment of benefits as representative payees have been revoked or terminated on or after January 1, 1991, because of misuse of benefits under Title II, Title VIII, or Title XVI of the Social Security Act;
2. Names and SSNs (or EINs) of all persons convicted of violations of sections 208, 811, and 1632 of the Social Security Act, as amended;
3. Names, addresses, and SSNs (or EINs) of persons convicted of violations of statutes other than sections 208, 811, and 1632 of the Social Security Act, when such violations were committed in connection with the individual's service as a Social Security representative payee;
4. Names, addresses, SSNs, and information about representative payee or representative payee applicant self-reported crimes, outstanding felony warrants, or imprisonment for a period exceeding one (1) year (an indicator will be used in the system to identify persons identified as having an outstanding felony warrant);
5. Names, addresses, and SSNs (or EINs) of representative payees who are receiving benefit payments pursuant to sections 205(j), 807, or 1631(a)(2) of the Social Security Act;
6. Names, addresses, and SSNs of persons for whom representative payees are reported to be providing representative payee services under sections 205(j), 807, or 1631(a)(2) of the Social Security Act;
7. Names, addresses, and SSNs of representative payee applicants who were not selected as representative payees;
8. Names, addresses, and SSNs of persons who were terminated as representative payees for reasons other than misuse of benefits paid to them on behalf of beneficiaries or recipients;
9. Information concerning the representative payee's relationship to the beneficiaries or recipients they serve;
10. Names, addresses, EINs, and qualifying information of organizations authorized to charge a fee for providing representative payee services;
11. Codes which indicate the relationship (other than familial) between the beneficiaries or recipients and the persons who have custody of the beneficiaries or recipients;
12. Dates and reasons for representative payee terminations (
13. Codes indicating whether representative payee applicants were selected or not selected;
14. Dates and reasons representative payee applicants were not selected to serve as payees, dates and reasons for changes of payees (
15. Amount of benefits misused;
16. Identification number assigned to the claim on which the misuse occurred;
17. Date of the determination of misuse;
18. Information about a felony conviction reported by the representative payee;
19. Criminal history information obtained from SSA databases, representative payees, third parties, contractors, and other Federal agencies, including records that dispute criminal history information provided by third parties;
20. Annual payee accounting reports; and,
21. Records of representative payee reviews, including educational visits.
We obtain information in this system from representative payee applicants and representative payees; third parties, contractors, grantees and local, state, and Federal government agencies; the SSA Office of Inspector General; and existing SSA systems of records such as the Master Files of SSN Holders and SSN Applications, 60-0058; Claims Folders System, 60-0089; Master Beneficiary Record, 60-0090; SSI Record and Special Veterans Benefits, 60-0103; Recovery of Overpayments, Accounting and Reporting/Debt Management System, 60-0094; and Prisoner Update Processing System, 60-0269.
We will disclose records pursuant to the following routine uses; however, we will not disclose any information defined as “return or return information” under 26 U.S.C. 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), unless authorized by statute, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), or IRS regulations.
1. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), a court or other tribunal, or another party before such court or tribunal, when:
(a) The Social Security Administration (SSA), or any component thereof; or
(b) any SSA employee in his or her official capacity; or
(c) any SSA employee in his or her individual capacity where DOJ (or SSA, where it is authorized to do so) has agreed to represent the employee; or
(d) the United States or any agency thereof where SSA determines that the litigation is likely to affect SSA or any of its components, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and SSA determines that the use of such records by DOJ, a court or other tribunal, or another party before the tribunal, is relevant and necessary to the litigation, provided, however, that in each case, SSA determines that such disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
2. To a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that office made on behalf of, and at the request of, the subject of the record or third party acting on the subject's behalf.
3. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
4. To the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Regional Office, Manila, Philippines, for the administration of the Social Security Act in the Philippines and other parts of the Asia-Pacific region through services and facilities of that agency.
5. To the Department of State, for administration of the Social Security Act in foreign countries rough services and facilities of that agency.
6. To the American Institute, a private corporation under contract to the Department of State, for administering the Social Security Act in Taiwan through facilities and services of that agency.
7. To DOJ for:
(a) Investigating and prosecuting violations of the Social Security Act to which criminal penalties attach;
(b) representing the Commissioner of Social Security; and,
(c) investigating issues of fraud or violations of civil rights by officers or employees of the SSA.
8. To the Office of the President in response to an inquiry from that office made on behalf of, and at the request of, the subject of the record or a third party acting on the subject's behalf.
9. To the VA, for the shared administration of the VA's and SSA's representative payee programs.
10. To contractors and other Federal Agencies, as necessary, for the purpose of assisting the SSA in the efficient administration of its programs. We will disclose information under this routine use only in situations in which SSA may enter into a contractual or similar agreement to obtain assistance in accomplishing an SSA function relating to this system of records.
11. To a third party such as a physician, social worker, or community service worker, who has, or is expected to have, information, which is needed to evaluate one or both of the following:
(a) The claimant's capability to manage or direct the management of his or her benefits; or
(b) any case in which disclosure aids investigation of suspected misuse of benefits, abuse or fraud, or is necessary for program integrity, or quality appraisal activities.
12. To a third party, where necessary, information pertaining to the identity of a representative payee or representative payee applicant, the fact of the person's application for or service as a representative payee, and, as necessary, the identity of the beneficiary, to obtain information on employment, sources of income, criminal justice records, stability of residence, and other information relating to the qualifications and suitability of representative payees or representative payee applicants to serve as representative payees, or their use of the benefits paid to them under sections 205(j), 807, or 1631(a) of the Social Security Act.
13. To a claimant, or other individual authorized to act on his or her behalf, information concerning the status of his or her representative payee or the status of the application of a person applying to be his or her representative payee, and information pertaining to the address of a representative payee applicant or a selected representative payee, when this information is needed to pursue a claim for recovery of misapplied or misused benefits.
14. To the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), for the administration of RRB's representative payment program.
15. To student volunteers, individuals working under a personal services contract, and other workers who technically do not have the status of Federal employees, when they are performing work for SSA, as authorized by law, and they need access to PII in SSA records in order to perform their assigned agency functions.
16. To the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), for the administration of OPM's representative payee programs.
17. To the Secretary of Health and Human Services or to any State, any record or information requested in writing by the Secretary for the purpose of administering any program administered by the Secretary, if records or information of such type were so disclosed under applicable rules, regulations and procedures in effect
18. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
(a) SSA suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records;
(b) SSA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach, there is a risk of harm to individuals, SSA (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and
(c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connections with SSA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
19. To third parties, contractors, or other Federal agencies, as necessary, to conduct criminal background checks and to obtain criminal history information on representative payees and representative payee applicants.
20. To Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and private security contractors, as appropriate, information necessary:
(a) To enable them to protect the safety of SSA employees and customers, the security of the SSA workplace and the operation of SSA facilities; or
(b) to assist investigations or prosecutions with respect to activities that affect such safety and security, or activities that disrupt the operation of SSA facilities.
21. To agencies or entities who have a written agreement with SSA, to perform representative payee reviews for SSA and to provide training, administrative oversight, technical assistance, and other support for those reviews.
22. To state protection and advocacy systems, that have a written agreement with SSA to conduct reviews of representative payees, for the purpose of conducting additional reviews that the protection and advocacy systems have reason to believe are warranted.
23. To agencies or entities with responsibility for investigating or addressing possible financial exploitation of, an immediate health or safety threat to, or other serious risk to the well-being of the beneficiary, for referral, when these issues are identified during a representative payee review
24. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when SSA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in:
(a) Responding to a suspected or confirmed breach; or
(b) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
We maintain records in this system in paper and electronic form.
We will retrieve records by the representative payee's, beneficiary's, recipient's, or claimant's SSN, EIN or name.
In accordance with NARA rules codified at 36 CFR 1225.16, we maintain records in accordance with the NARA approved Agency-Specific Records Schedules N1-47-09-04 and N1-47-09-5.
We retain electronic and paper files containing personal identifiers in secure areas and systems accessible only by our authorized employees who have a need for the information when performing their official duties. Security measures include, but are not limited to, the use of codes and profiles, personal identification number and password, and personal identification verification cards. We restrict access to specific correspondence within the system based on assigned roles and authorized users. We maintain electronic files with personal identifiers in secure storage areas. We will use audit mechanisms to record sensitive transactions as an additional measure to protect information from unauthorized disclosure or modification. We keep paper records in cabinets within secure areas, with access limited to only those employees who have an official need for access in order to perform their duties. We require agencies and entities performing work for SSA who require access to information from this system to impose equivalent safeguards.
We annually provide our employees, contractors, and others performing work for us with appropriate security awareness training that includes reminders about the need to protect PII and the criminal penalties that apply to unauthorized access to, or disclosure of PII. See 5 U.S.C. 552a(i)(1). Furthermore, those with access to databases maintaining PII are informed of the penalties for improper access and disclosure of PII.
Individuals may submit requests for information about whether this system contains a record about them by submitting a written request to the system manager at the above address, which includes their name, SSN, or other information that may be in this system of records that will identify them. Individuals requesting notification of, or access to, a record by mail must include: (1) A notarized statement to us to verify their identity; or (2) must certify in the request that they are the individual they claim to be and that they understand that the knowing and willful request for, or acquisition of, a record pertaining to another individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense.
Individuals requesting notification of, or access to, records in person must provide their name, SSN, or other information that may be in this system of records that will identify them, as well as provide an identity document, preferably with a photograph, such as a driver's license. Individuals lacking identification documents sufficient to establish their identity must certify in writing that they are the individual they claim to be and that they understand that the knowing and willful request for, or acquisition of, a record pertaining to another individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense. These procedures are in accordance with our regulations at 20 CFR 401.40 and 401.45.
Same as record access procedures. Individuals should also reasonably identify the record, specify the information they are contesting, and state the corrective action sought and the reasons for the correction with supporting justification showing how the record is incomplete, untimely, inaccurate, or irrelevant. These procedures are in accordance with our regulations at 20 CFR 401.65(a).
Same as record access procedures. These procedures are in accordance with our regulations at 20 CFR 401.40 and 401.45.
None.
78 FR 23811, Master Representative Payee File.
83 FR 31250, Master Representative Payee File.
83 FR 31251, Master Representative Payee File.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the laws of the United States, including 22 U.S.C. 2651a and 5 U.S.C. 3111 (“Section 3111”), and delegated by Delegation of Authority 198, dated September 16, 1992, to the extent authorized by law and pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 3111, I hereby delegate the authority of the Secretary to accept voluntary services for the United States to the Director of the Office of Civil Rights (S/OCR).
This authority is limited to the acceptance of voluntary services provided by law students who are filling legal extern and intern positions.
Any official action within the scope of this delegation taken prior to the effective date of this delegation by the Director of S/OCR are hereby ratified and continued in effect, according to their terms, until modified, revoked, or superseded by authorized action.
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, and the Under Secretary of State for Management may at any time exercise the authority herein delegated. This delegation of authority does not amend or supersede any other valid delegation of authority.
This delegation of authority will be published in the
CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR pt. 1152 subpart F-
CSXT has certified that: (1) no local rail traffic has moved over the Line during the past two years; (2) any overhead traffic on the Line can be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of a rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line is either pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or had been decided in favor of a complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment of service shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to CSXT's representative, Louis E. Gitomer, Law Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, LLC, 600 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
CSXT has filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by November 9, 2018. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling OEA at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), CSXT shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the Line. If consummation has not been effected by CSXT's filing of a notice of consummation by November 2, 2019, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of a new information collection. This collection involves FAA certification process requirements for operators and repair stations who are required to submit documentation related to hazardous materials training programs.
Written comments should be submitted by January 2, 2019.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177
Barbara Hall by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.
Notice of availability.
The FAA, Eastern Service Center is issuing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the Categorical Exclusion/Record of Decision (CATEX/ROD) for the Boston Harbor Seaplane Operation. The FAA reviewed the action and determined it to be categorically excluded from further environmental review.
Mr. Andrew Pieroni, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337, (404) 305-5586.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to implement a Letter of Agreement (LOA) between Boston Airport Traffic Control Tower (BOS ATCT), Boston Consolidated Terminal Radar Approach Control (A90) and Hyannis Air Service Inc., (OBA Cape Air [KAP]) for seaplane operations in the Boston, Massachusetts Inner Harbor. This proposed LOA would ensure standardized, safe and de-conflicted seaplane operations in the Boston, Massachusetts Inner Harbor from BOS ATCT operations and allows for efficient airspace operations in the General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport (BOS) Class B airspace. The proposed VFR handling of seaplane arrivals and departures will enhance safety and minimize delays for aircraft at BOS. The FAA reviewed the action and determined it to be categorically excluded from further environmental review according to FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. The applicable categorical exclusion is § 5-6.S(i.).
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 24, 2018.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of record of decision.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its decision to adopt the United States Departments of the Army (Army) and Air Force's (USAF) Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Modernization and Enhancement of Ranges, Airspace, and Training Areas in the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC) in Alaska, EIS No. 20130181. In accordance with Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), the Council on Environmental Quality's (“CEQ”) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and other applicable authorities, including The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 8-2, and FAA Order JO 7400.2K, “Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters,” paragraph 32-2-3, the FAA has conducted an independent review and evaluation of the Army and the USAF's Final EIS for Modernization and Enhancement of Ranges, Airspace, and Training Areas in the JPARC in Alaska, dated June 2013. As a cooperating agency with responsibility for approving special use airspace (SUA) under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(3)(A), the FAA provided subject matter expertise and coordinated with the USAF and Army during the environmental review process, including preparation of the Draft EIS and the Final EIS. Based on its independent review and evaluation, the FAA has determined the Final EIS, including its supporting documentation, as incorporated by reference, and other supporting documentation incorporated by reference for FAA's Written Re-Evaluation and Adoption of the Final EIS adequately assesses and discloses the environmental impacts of the for Modernization and Enhancement of Ranges, Airspace, and Training Areas in the JPARC in Alaska. FAA is authorized to adopt the Final EIS under 40 CFR 1506.3, Adoption. Accordingly, the FAA adopts the Final EIS, and takes full responsibility for the scope and content that addresses the proposed changes to SUA for JPARC.
Paula Miller, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-7378.
In March 2012, in accordance with NEPA and its implementing regulations, the USAF and Army released a Draft EIS. The Draft EIS presented the potential environmental consequences of the USAF and Army's proposal to modernize and enhance JPARC ranges by analyzing the military training activities at JPARC, Alaska. As a result of the FAA aeronautical review process, and public, agency, and tribal comments during the 111-day public comment period on the Draft EIS, the USAF, FAA, other federal and state agencies, and tribal governments have consulted to mitigate concerns while continuing to meet national defense training requirements. The USAF and Army are the proponents for the JPARC Modernization and were the lead agencies for the preparation of the Final EIS, which was issued in June 2013. The FAA is a cooperating agency responsible for approving SUA as defined in 40 CFR 1508.5.
The FAA has independently evaluated the JPARC Final EIS and the accompanying SUA proposals. FAA found that the USAF SUA proposals are ripe for a decision while the Army SUA proposals are currently still undergoing aeronautical processing and development. Therefore, the scope and extent of FAA's Record of Decision (ROD) is only for the USAF SUA proposals.
The USAF and Army issued one ROD. The ROD lists the Army and USAF actions and decisions separately. The ROD includes an Army Decision, signed July 30, 2013, and an USAF Decision signed August 6, 2013. The USAF selected the preferred alternatives for the Fox 3 MOA Expansion and New Paxon MOA, Realistic Live Ordnance Delivery (RLOD), and Night Joint Training (NJT). The Army/USAF ROD also lists mitigation measures by agency and specific action. The USAF has since decided they do not currently plan to implement RLOD, and they have not submitted an aeronautical proposal for the expansion of R-2202 necessary for RLOD.
After evaluating the public comments received, the aeronautical studies, and the environmental analysis, the FAA is expanding the Fox 3 Military Operations Area (MOA), establishing the Paxon and Delta 5 MOAs, and extending the times of use of the existing JPARC MOAs for NJT.
FAA circularized the proposed actions from February 24, 2105 through May 10, 2015. After the conclusion of the circularization comment period and FAA's Aeronautical Study, the FAA changed the name of Paxon B MOA to Delta 5 MOA and deleted the Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Corridor in the interest of safety. The name change and the elimination of the VFR Corridor mitigation do not change the SUA request or the analysis done in the Final EIS and the Aeronautical Study. The modification did not change the area of analysis; therefore, the environmental and aeronautical analyses are still valid. The legal descriptions for the JPARC MOAs will be published in the National Flight Data Digest with a November 8, 2018 effective date. The August 29, 2018 Written Re-Evaluation/Adoption/ROD is available on the FAA website and can be viewed at
The Written Re-evaluation, Adoption, and ROD for the changes to the JPARC MOAs constitutes a final order of the FAA Administrator and is subject to exclusive judicial review under 49 U.S.C. 46110 by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the person contesting the decision resides or has its principal place of business. Any party having substantial interest in this order may apply for review of the decision by filing a petition for review in the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals no later than 60 days after the date of this notice in accordance with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 46110.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by FHWA.
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA that are final. The actions relate to the proposed widening of Interstate 64 to a consistent six-lane facility between Interstates 664 and 564 and the addition of a new bridge-tunnel parallel to the existing Interstate 64 Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
For FHWA: Mr. Edward Sundra, Director of Program Development, FHWA Virginia Division, 400 North 8th Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219; telephone: (804) 775-3357; email:
Notice is hereby given that FHWA has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
23 U.S.C 139(
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, 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, Public Law 104-13. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 13997, Validating Your TIN and Reasonable Cause.
Written comments should be received on or before January 2, 2019 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Laurie Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Charles G. Daniel at (202) 317-5754, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of Research and Development, Technology Transfer Program, intends to grant to Medline Industries, Inc., Three Lakes Drive, Northfield, IL 60093, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,905,421; 9,445,958; 9,795,522; 9,980,863 and related patent applications associated with VA Invention Disclosure number 12-314, titled, “Manual Wheelchair System for Improved Propulsion and Transfer.”
Comments must be received by November 19, 2018.
Written comments may be submitted through
Dr. Lee A. Sylvers, Technology Transfer Specialist, Office of Research and Development (10P9TT), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 443-5646 (this is not a toll-free number).
It is in the public interest to license this invention. Medline submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within 15 days from the date of this published Notice, the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Research and Development, Technology Transfer Program receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on October 29, 2018, for publication.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order.
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;
(b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;
(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, lawful permanent resident, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States;
(d) the term “Government of Venezuela” means the Government of Venezuela, any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including the Central Bank of Venezuela, and any person owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, the Government of Venezuela.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
| 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 |