83_FR_222
Page Range | 57671-58174 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
83 FR 57754 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
83 FR 57752 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
83 FR 57726 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
83 FR 57673 - Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 1245(d)(4)(B) and (C) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 | |
83 FR 57671 - Delegation of Authorities Under Section 1294 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 | |
83 FR 57746 - Meeting of the California Desert District Advisory Council | |
83 FR 57746 - Notice of Federal Competitive Coal Lease Sale, Alton Coal Tract, Utah (Coal Lease Application UTU-81895) | |
83 FR 57739 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group | |
83 FR 57725 - Meeting of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council | |
83 FR 57704 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Amendment to Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds From Consumer Products | |
83 FR 57734 - Request for Nominations for Individuals and Consumer Organizations for Advisory Committees | |
83 FR 57725 - Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC; Notice of Technical Meeting | |
83 FR 57724 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
83 FR 57723 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
83 FR 57745 - Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) | |
83 FR 57730 - Medical Devices; Availability of Safety and Effectiveness Summaries for Premarket Approval Applications | |
83 FR 57737 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request; Information Collection Request Title: MCH Jurisdictional Survey Instrument for the Title V MCH Block Grant Program, OMB No. 0906-XXXX, New | |
83 FR 57723 - Procurement List; Deletions | |
83 FR 57802 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
83 FR 57722 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions | |
83 FR 57727 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Continued Approval of the Community Health Accreditation Partner's Hospice Accreditation Program | |
83 FR 57739 - Findings of Research Misconduct | |
83 FR 57753 - Proposed Revisions to SRP 2.5.3, Surface Deformation | |
83 FR 57732 - Electronic Submission of Adverse Event Reports to the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System Using International Council for Harmonisation E2B(R3) Standards; Public Meetings; Request for Comments | |
83 FR 57717 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 41-Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Notification of Proposed Production Activity, Jeneil Biotech, Inc. (Natural Fragrance Intermediates), Saukville, Wisconsin | |
83 FR 57718 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 122-Corpus Christi, Texas; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Gulf Coast Growth Ventures LLC; (Ethylene, Polyethylene and Monoethylene Glycol and Related Co-Products); San Patricio County, Texas | |
83 FR 57716 - Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board | |
83 FR 57715 - Umatilla National Forest, Oregon, Ellis Integrated Vegetation Management Project | |
83 FR 57689 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Snohomish River, Everett, WA | |
83 FR 57714 - Salmon-Challis National Forest; Idaho; Plan Development | |
83 FR 57720 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Hearings | |
83 FR 57721 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
83 FR 57718 - South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
83 FR 57729 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 57751 - Proposed Revisions to SRPs 2.3.3, Onsite Meteorological Measurements Program; 2.4.6, Tsunami Hazards; and 2.4.9, Channel Migration or Diversion | |
83 FR 57771 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 57761 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 57762 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 57770 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 57726 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
83 FR 57793 - Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair Program | |
83 FR 57792 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
83 FR 57790 - Declaration of Economic Injury; Administrative Declaration of an Economic Injury Disaster for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts | |
83 FR 57789 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania | |
83 FR 57789 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of New Jersey | |
83 FR 57693 - Express Loan Programs; Affiliation Standards | |
83 FR 57792 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag and Supplemental Operations | |
83 FR 57747 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
83 FR 57749 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
83 FR 57767 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend General 8 of the Exchange's Rules | |
83 FR 57762 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend General 8 of the Exchange's Rules | |
83 FR 57758 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend General 8 of the Exchange's Rules | |
83 FR 57771 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend General 8 of the Exchange's Rules | |
83 FR 57765 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend General 8 of the Exchange's Rules | |
83 FR 57786 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend General 8 of the Exchange's Rules | |
83 FR 57786 - Investor Advisory Committee Meeting | |
83 FR 57754 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
83 FR 57755 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
83 FR 57755 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
83 FR 57755 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
83 FR 57717 - Notice of Public Meetings of the Oklahoma Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights | |
83 FR 57791 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Recording of Aircraft Conveyances and Security Documents | |
83 FR 57721 - Nevada Broadband Workshop | |
83 FR 57754 - Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee; Open Committee Meetings | |
83 FR 57691 - Olives Grown in California; Establish Procedures To Meet Via Electronic Communications | |
83 FR 57677 - Adoption of Updated EDGAR Filer Manual; Correction | |
83 FR 57747 - Filing of Plats of Survey, Nebraska and Wyoming | |
83 FR 57740 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 57743 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 57728 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
83 FR 57741 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 57743 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 57744 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 57742 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 57742 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 57744 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 57675 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) Helicopters | |
83 FR 57778 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Order Granting Approval of Accelerated Delivery of Supplement to the Options Disclosure Document Reflecting the Inclusion of Disclosure Regarding Foreign Currency Index Options and Implied Volatility Index Options, Certain Contract Adjustment Disclosures, and T+2 Settlement | |
83 FR 57790 - Request for Comments on Negotiating Objectives for a U.S.-United Kingdom Trade Agreement | |
83 FR 57726 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
83 FR 57755 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating To Modify its Fee Schedule | |
83 FR 57783 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Listed Company Manual To Clarify the Application of the Initial Listing Requirements to Common Equity Securities Issued in Exchange for a Listed Equity Investment Tracking Stock | |
83 FR 57780 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Futures Exchange, LLC; Notice of a Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Regarding Block Trade and Exchange of Contract for Related Position Reporting Provisions | |
83 FR 57757 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Futures Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Regarding Correction of Reporting Errors | |
83 FR 57774 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Various Rules To Reflect Changes to The Nasdaq Options Market LLC (“NOM”) Protocols | |
83 FR 57782 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating To Modify Its Fee Schedule | |
83 FR 57689 - Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances; Withdrawal | |
83 FR 57677 - Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations; Clarifying the Exemption for Manufacture of Recreational Vehicles | |
83 FR 57693 - Military Credit Monitoring | |
83 FR 57751 - Draft Federal Grants Management Data Standards for Feedback | |
83 FR 57705 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Regional Fishery Management Council Membership; Financial Disclosure and Recusal | |
83 FR 57701 - Air Plan Approval; Oklahoma; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 1997 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
83 FR 57749 - Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), Alaska Region (AK), Beaufort Sea Program Area, Proposed 2019 Beaufort Sea Oil and Gas Lease Sale | |
83 FR 58085 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
83 FR 58045 - Semiannual Agenda of Regulations | |
83 FR 58117 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
83 FR 58113 - Regulatory Flexibility Agenda | |
83 FR 58093 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
83 FR 58091 - Semiannual Agenda of Regulations Under Development or Review | |
83 FR 58089 - Regulatory Agenda | |
83 FR 58031 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
83 FR 58019 - Regulatory Agenda | |
83 FR 57997 - Fall 2018 Semiannual Agenda of Regulations | |
83 FR 57991 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, Fall 2018 | |
83 FR 58077 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
83 FR 58075 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
83 FR 58071 - Semiannual Agenda and Fiscal Year 2017 Regulatory Plan | |
83 FR 58051 - Department Regulatory and Deregulatory Agenda; Semiannual Summary | |
83 FR 58043 - Regulatory Agenda | |
83 FR 57803 - Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions-Fall 2018 | |
83 FR 58123 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
83 FR 58129 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions-Fall 2018 | |
83 FR 58157 - Semiannual Regulatory Flexibility Agenda | |
83 FR 58099 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
83 FR 58161 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
83 FR 58163 - Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
83 FR 58173 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
83 FR 58167 - Regulatory Flexibility Agenda | |
83 FR 58079 - Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions | |
83 FR 58039 - Semiannual Regulatory Agenda | |
83 FR 58015 - Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are revising Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-21-05 for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (now Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH) (Airbus Helicopters) Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters. AD 2013-21-05 required an initial and repetitive inspections of certain bearings and modifying the floor and a rod. Since we issued AD 2013-21-05, we have determined that modifying the floor and rod removes the unsafe condition. This AD retains the requirements of AD 2013-21-05 but removes the repetitive inspections. The actions of this AD are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective December 21, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 5, 2013 (78 FR 65169, October 31, 2013).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to remove AD 2013-21-05, Amendment 39-17629 (78 FR 65169, October 31, 2013) (AD 2013-21-05) and add a new AD. AD 2013-21-05 applied to Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (now Airbus Helicopters) Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters with bearing part number (P/N) LN9367GE6N2; rod P/N L671M5040205; lever P/N L671M5040101; and floor P/N L533M1014101, L533M1014102, L533M1014103, L533M1014104, L533M1014105 or L533M1014106 installed. AD 2013-21-05 required inspecting each bearing for freedom of movement within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 800 hours TIS. AD 2013-21-05 also required modifying the floor and modifying and re-identifying the rod with a new P/N. The NPRM published in the
Accordingly, the NPRM proposed to retain the requirements of AD 2013-21-05 but remove the repetitive inspections. The proposed actions were intended to detect and prevent the binding of a bearing, which could lead to loss of helicopter control.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
The EASA AD sets compliance times from its original effective date of October 20, 2006, and this AD does not. This AD requires modifying each rod within 100 hours TIS, rather than within 800 hours TIS as specified in the EASA AD. This AD does not require contacting Eurocopter customer support, unlike the EASA AD. Finally, this AD does not apply to Airbus Helicopters Model EC635 T1, EC635 P2+, and EC635 T2+ helicopters because they have no FAA type certificate.
We reviewed Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-67A-012, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2006 (ASB Rev 1), which specifies repetitively inspecting the bearing of the linear transducer for freedom of movement and the lower side of the floor for chafing or damage. If there is binding, ASB Rev 1 specifies replacing the bearing. If there is chafing or damage on the floor, ASB Rev 1 specifies replacing the bearing and repairing the floor. ASB Rev 1 also specifies modifying and re-identifying a certain rod.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We also reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin EC135-67A-012, Revision 2, dated April 3, 2017 (ASB Rev 2). ASB Rev 2 states that the repetitive inspection has been added to the helicopter maintenance manual. The repetitive inspection is therefore removed, and ASB Rev 2 requires no action. ASB Rev 1 is attached to ASB Rev 2 as an Appendix.
We estimate that this AD affects 304 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 a work hour. We estimate it takes about 10 work-hours to inspect the bearing, and no parts or materials are required, for a cost of $850 per helicopter and $258,400 for the U.S. fleet. If necessary, replacing the bearing requires 3 additional work-hours, and parts cost $50, for a cost of $305 per helicopter. Repairing the floor requires 3 additional work-hours and a minimal cost for materials, for a cost of $255 per helicopter.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters, with bearing, part number (P/N) LN9367GE6N2; rod, P/N L671M5040205; lever, P/N L671M5040101; and floor, P/N L533M1014101, L533M1014102, L533M1014103, L533M1014104, L533M1014105 or L533M1014106, installed, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as limited control of a tail rotor because of the binding of a bearing. This condition could result in subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD replaces AD 2013-21-05, Amendment 39-17629 (78 FR 65169, October 31, 2013).
This AD becomes effective December 21, 2018.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS), inspect each bearing for freedom of movement by turning and tilting the bearing as depicted in Figure 2 of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. EC135-67A-012, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2006 (ASB). During any inspection:
(i) If there is binding or rough turning, before further flight, replace the bearing with an airworthy bearing.
(ii) If there is chafing on the lower side of the floor that does not extend through the panel outer layer, before further flight, replace the bearing with an airworthy bearing.
(iii) If there is damage on the lower side of the floor in the area of the assembly opening that extends through the panel outer layer (revealing an open honeycomb cell or layer), before further flight, replace the bearing with an airworthy bearing and repair the floor.
(2) After performing the actions in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD, before further flight, install a Teflon strip and identify the floor by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.E.(1) through 3.E.(4), of the ASB.
(3) Within 100 hours TIS, modify and re-identify the rod as depicted in Figure 1 of the ASB and by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.H.(1) through 3.H.(3)(f), of the ASB.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or
(1) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. EC135-67A-012, Revision 2, dated April 3, 2017, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2006-0318R2, dated April 25, 2017. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6720, Tail Rotor Control System.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on December 5, 2013 (78 FR 65169, October 31, 2013).
(i) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. EC135-67A-012, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2006.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) For Airbus Helicopters service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
(5) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule; correction.
The Securities and Exchange Commission published a document in the
Effective November 16, 2018.
Christian Windsor, EDGAR Business Office, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, (202) 551-3419.
In FR Doc. 2018-24128 appearing on page 55264 in the
On page 55264, in the 20th line of the third column, the phrase “(Version 32)” is corrected to read “(Version 31)”.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Final rule.
This rulemaking revises the exemption for the manufacture of recreational vehicles to clarify which recreational vehicles qualify for an exemption from HUD's Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards and Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement regulations. HUD is adopting a recommendation of the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) but expanding the definition of recreational vehicle and modifying it to require certification with the updated ANSI standard, A119.5-15.
Teresa Payne, Acting Administrator, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 9164, Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-5216. (This is not a toll-free number.) Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service, toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339.
The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (the Act)
Since the HUD Code's inception in 1976, Recreational Vehicles (RVs) have been largely exempted from the HUD Code. Self-propelled RVs are statutorily exempted, and other classes of RVs over
Prior to this rulemaking, the RV exemption was roundly criticized for not drawing a clear enough distinction between RVs, which are designed for temporary, recreational use, and manufactured housing, which is designed for permanent, year-round dwelling. This distinction has become increasingly relevant, because RV manufacturers have begun to produce larger products that include more features, such as porches built on the chassis, and that resemble manufactured homes. These additions have raised questions as to whether these features should be included when measuring according to Interpretive Bulletin A-1-88 for the purposes of exemption. This has increased the confusion over whether HUD should regulate certain RVs because they meet the statutory definition of a manufactured home or whether they should be exempted based on their intended design for temporary, recreational use.
To address this issue, HUD issued memoranda in 2014 and 2015, reiterating the method through which RVs should be measured to qualify for the RV exemption.
HUD issued a proposed rule on February 9, 2016, at 81 FR 6806, to revise the definitions of “Manufactured home” at 24 CFR 3280.2 and “Recreational vehicles” at 24 CFR 3282.8(g), to clarify—and effectively expand—the exemption of RVs from the HUD's Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards and its Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement regulations. The rule proposed to change the definition of RVs by revising the four-part test used to determine whether a structure qualifies for the RV exemption. Specifically, HUD's rule proposed a definition focused on whether or not the structure is certified as a manufactured home and whether it is constructed according to two consensus RV standards: The ANSI A119.5 Park Model Recreational Vehicle Standard and the NFPA 1192-15 Standard on Recreational Vehicles.
HUD issued a
This final rule adopts the approach of the proposed rule to reinforce the distinction between manufactured housing, which HUD regulates under its Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards and its Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement
After considering public comments received on the February 9, 2016, proposed rule, and after further review, HUD makes the following changes at the final rule stage.
1. In the final rule, HUD elects not to revise the definition of “manufactured home,” found at 24 CFR 3280.2, to ensure that the regulatory definition of “manufactured home” tracks with its statutory definition.
2. In § 3282.15(b)(1), HUD removes the term “factory built,” in response to public comment. HUD agrees with commenters who stated that some RV manufacturers do not produce their products in a factory, but nevertheless should qualify for the exemption if they meet all other exemption criteria.
3. In § 3282.15(b)(1), HUD adds the term “vehicle” to the definition of a recreational vehicle in response to public comment. HUD agrees with commenters who stated that “vehicle” is also a term of art used by state and local governments in regulating RVs.
4. In § 3282.15(b)(3), HUD makes a technical correction to remove the term “Recreational Park Trailer Standard” and replace it with the term “Park Model Recreational Vehicle Standard,” in response to public comment and to reflect the standard's proper title.
5. In § 3282.15(c), HUD makes several changes; to remove the term “Notice” and replace it with the term “Manufacturer's Notice” for clarity; and to specify that in all cases where the exemption is based on the unit being certified to the ANSI A-119.5-15 standard, the Manufacturer's Notice must be provided to the consumer prior to the completion of the sales transaction, as defined in this final rule. Finally, HUD adds a definition of “completion of sales transaction” in this final rule, because the cross-reference to § 3282.252(b), in the proposed rule, was inapplicable.
The public comment period for the February 9, 2016, proposed rule closed on April 11, 2016. HUD received approximately 5,300 public comments in response to the proposed rule. A wide variety of interested entities submitted comments, including individuals, homeowners' associations, industry groups, state and local governments, and trade associations. At the outset, HUD notes that an overwhelming majority of these public comments were based on a misunderstanding of the proposed rule's intent and legal effect. This misunderstanding was propagated by social media, which opined that the rule was intended to increase regulation and restrict or prohibit consumer use of RVs and other types of housing, such as tiny homes. HUD emphasizes that this rule does not affect the use of RVs by consumers. Rather, this final rule clarifies the exemption for RVs from HUD manufactured housing regulation.
This section of the preamble addresses significant issues raised in the public comments, and organizes them into subject groups, with a description of each group of comments followed by HUD's responses.
Many commenters stated that individuals have a right to housing choice, including where and how they live, so long as the housing they choose is safe and contains necessities. Some commenters shared current housing trends toward small homes to base their opposition to the rule. Commenters stated that consumers, not HUD, should determine what housing should be acceptable for full-time living. Commenters stated that there is no harm in full-time RV living.
Commenters also stated that many people rely on full-time RV living as an economic necessity, particularly in high-cost areas. Commenters also stated that many people live full-time in RVs, Fifth-Wheel Travel Trailers, or tiny homes, and have been doing so for years, particularly in warm climates.
Some commenters stated that RVs are designed for full-time living and that many RV parks encourage full-time RV living. Commenters also stated that HUD should recognize the many benefits of full-time RV or tiny home living, including but not necessarily limited to: Expanding access to housing or home ownership, especially for people with limited incomes, criminal records, or poor rental histories; homelessness prevention; flexible housing for people who are elderly; ease of evacuation from natural disasters or terrorism; and individual freedom—to live where a person wants, to have pets, to avoid environmental contaminants, to live mortgage-free, to have less to care for, to live frugally, to practice environmental responsibility, or to travel for enjoyment, work, or retirement. Commenters stated that HUD should specifically incorporate language into the rule, stating that full-time living in RVs remains legal. Commenters stated that HUD should not adopt any recommendations from the MHCC, as its agenda is to force people into manufactured homes.
Some commenters stated that because the rule would make it more difficult for full-time RV users to maintain their lifestyle, a host of detrimental secondary effects would result. For example, commenters stated that the rule would worsen homelessness and undermine HUD's mission by limiting the supply of affordable housing in the United States. Commenters stated that this would disproportionately affect, and effectively discriminate against, people who lack financial resources or face economic hardship;
Commenters stated that the rule dictates the minimum square footage of a home or requires modular homes to be
Because this rule does not prohibit or regulate the use of manufactured homes or RVs, including tiny homes, the secondary consequences described by certain commenters are moot, and HUD does not believe that there exists a need to address them individually. HUD also states that this rule does not dictate the minimum square footage of a home, nor does it require modular homes to be “as stable” as foundation-built homes. It also does not require manufacturers to obtain RVIA certification to claim the RV exemption. HUD reiterates that when it first codified the RV exemption in 1976, it unequivocally stated that RVs were not designed to be used as permanent dwellings. This final rule does not alter that underlying rationale for the exemption. Moreover, as noted above, both the ANSI and NFPA standard descriptions underscore the need to distinguish RVs from permanent housing.
Some commenters stated that HUD's manufactured home regulations were created to ensure minimum standards of safety, qualify, and affordability in housing designed for permanent residential use—while the market also demanded vehicles for recreational and seasonal use—but that both manufactured homes and RVs evolved and grew larger over time, making it more difficult to distinguish them. Several commenters stated that dwellings should be classified based on their design intent—
Commenters also stated that the MHCC's RV definition is appropriate, insofar as it reflects a broad consensus among stakeholders, regulators, and Congress that regulating RVs is outside the scope of HUD's housing mission and is not contemplated by the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act, and it allows for RVs and manufactured homes to be more easily distinguished. Commenters stated that HUD should not exercise regulatory authority over RVs, because they are already extensively regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation and state motor vehicle and taxing authorities, and if HUD were to regulate them, it would create conflicts. One commenter stated that the rule will beneficially deter future requests for regulatory exemptions by creating an important regulatory firewall between manufactured housing and RVs. Other commenters stated that the rule serves to eliminate regulatory uncertainty and the likelihood of congressional inquiries, and litigation, by more broadly exempting RVs from HUD's regulations.
Many commenters stated that the rule was contrary to law or public policy. Some commenters stated that the rule is unconstitutional,
Commenters also stated that the rule is vague,
HUD's regulation applies to the design and manufacture of manufactured homes and by way of this rulemaking allows for exemption for manufacturers of RVs that meet the exemption criteria. HUD's rule also helps to ensure that consumers are aware of the building standards used to construct the unit and the design purpose of the unit that they purchase. Both reference standards (ANSI A119.5 and NFPA 1192) contain definitions that specify, for both an RV and PMRV, as applicable, that the units are primarily designed to provide temporary living quarters. Both the manufactured housing and RV industries have expressed overwhelming support for this rule.
HUD reiterates that it is issuing this rule well within the bounds of its regulatory authority, and the rule in no way encroaches upon or violates the constitutional rights of individuals, businesses, or states, and nothing in the rule violates any statute, including the Fair Housing Act. HUD additionally notes that the rule could potentially lessen the likelihood of litigation or consumer claims against RV manufacturers, because the Manufacturer's Notice will provide for greater transparency and consumer awareness before transactions are complete.
Moreover, HUD states that the rule provides clear and commonly-used standards by which RVs must be manufactured in order to qualify for the exemption. Any fears regarding secondary market consequences on consumers, RV parks, or insurance or housing financing are both unfounded and well outside the scope of this rulemaking. HUD again stresses that this rule clarifies the existing RV regulatory exemption and does not affect the aforementioned markets.
Commenters stated that HUD should follow the example of state regulations and incorporate broader references to the ANSI and NFPA standards,
HUD acknowledges that the Manufacturer's Notice prescribed by this final rule is similar in content to the one issued by RVIA to its PMRV members; however, it also emphasizes two distinctions. First, HUD's
Commenters stated that by deterring full-time RV living, the rule would also have a negative impact on local economies and the United States and state and local tourist industries, particularly in warmer climates. Commenters similarly stated that the rule will have a detrimental impact on various segments of the market, the economy, industry or consumers, including manufacturers, the RV industry, RV parks, campgrounds. Commenters stated that the rule would force people to choose renting over home ownership, which would have the secondary effect of causing rent prices to increase.
Commenters stated that HUD's Office of Manufactured Housing is charged with regulating the manufactured housing industry, which provides permanent housing, and not the RV industry, which provides temporary accommodations for recreational and seasonal use. Commenters stated that if HUD were to regulate any RVs, it would waste scarce resources appropriated by Congress for the regulation of manufactured housing.
Commenters stated that HUD should not include in the definition of “recreational vehicle” that it is a non-permanent dwelling or otherwise reference the duration a user dwells within an RV. Commenters stated that
“Tiny home,” while not formally defined, generally refers to a type of home that is compact (usually below 400 square feet), on wheels, and intended for permanent residence. These tiny homes are gaining popularity even though most are built by do-it-yourself builders and do not conform to any established building code or construction standard for safety. The majority of these homes are built and occupied in ways that do not meet construction standards for recreational vehicles (RVs), which are designed for use as temporary living quarters for non-commercial, recreational and/or camping use. They also do not meet construction standards for a manufactured home, which is a
One commenter stated that HUD should broaden the definition of manufactured housing to include tiny homes, including those that are under 400 square feet, those that are built by manufacturers, and those that are built by so-called “do-it-your-selfers,” assuming that they meet or exceed ANSI standards, other than square footage, and are built on a trailer frame, a foundation, a boat, or piers. Commenters stated that such tiny homes are fit for year-round use, and should be recognized as such, particularly if they are insulated and include heating and cooling systems. Commenters stated that HUD regulation of tiny homes would make it easier for states and municipalities to recognize tiny homes as legitimate year-round, permanent dwellings, and it would make it easier for tiny house owners to obtain insurance policies.
Commenters stated that there are currently no safety, construction, or energy efficiency standards specifically and uniformly being applied to tiny homes. Commenters stated that the National Organization of Alternative Housing (NOAH) already encourages the tiny home industry to self-regulate using various standards,
A commenter stated that HUD should create a new and separate exemption for tiny homes, to define them in a fashion similar to the definition of RV under the prior exemption at 24 CFR 3282.8;
That said, HUD is considering whether it should develop Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards to allow manufactured homes with reduced dimensions and design requirements to be built to a national preemptive HUD standard. Additionally, the International Code Council (ICC) has recently considered a “tiny house appendix,” which is incorporated into the 2018 International Residential Code. HUD will consider other appropriate measures, including potential rulemaking related to tiny homes, as it receives new information.
This rulemaking incorporates by reference ANSI A119.5-15 and NFPA 1192-15 consensus standards for Recreational Vehicles. The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) sponsors and is accredited to manage the ANSI A119.5 Park Model Recreational Vehicle Standard, which is designed specifically for PMRVs. According to the RVIA, “[m]embers of the engineering profession and others associated with the design, manufacture, and inspection of Park Model Recreational Vehicles have been aware of the need for a standard providing for healthful and safe, portable, seasonal housing, arranged and equipped to assure suitable living conditions. They have also recognized that because of conditions of transport, size, and use, existing standards for permanent buildings and recreational vehicles are not completely applicable to Park Model RVs. It is with these factors in mind that this standard has been developed.”
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) develops and maintains the NFPA 1192 Standard on Recreational Vehicles. According to NFPA, “Those members of the engineering profession and others associated with the design, manufacturing, and inspection of recreational vehicles have been aware of the need for uniform technical standards leading to the proper use of this special type of equipment. They also have recognized that, because of conditions of transport, size, and use, existing standards for motor vehicles or permanent buildings are not completely applicable to recreational vehicles.”
Incorporated standards have the same force and effect as 24 CFR part 3282, except that whenever reference standards and 24 CFR part 3282 are inconsistent, the requirements of 24 CFR part 3282 prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. The Department will enforce the listed editions of incorporated material. Where two or more incorporated standards are equivalent in application, the manufacturer may use either standard.
HUD has worked with both organizations to ensure that both ANSI A119.5-15 and NFPA 1192-15 are available via read-only, electronic access. NFPA 1192-15 is available at
Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned. Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public.
This rule is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and was formally reviewed by the OMB. This rule revises the definition of recreational vehicle to clarify the types of recreational vehicles exempted from 24 CFR parts 3280 and 3282. In the past, both consumers and manufacturers of recreational vehicles have questioned whether certain recreational vehicles are subject to HUD's Construction and Safety Standards, codified in 24 CFR part 3280 (the HUD Code), and HUD's Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement regulations, codified in 24 CFR part 3282. This rule will provide that a recreational vehicle is exempted from HUD's Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards and its Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement regulations if the unit is built in conformance with either NFPA 1192-15, Standard on Recreational Vehicles, or ANSI A119.5-15, Park Model Recreational Vehicle Standard.
Under the leadership of Secretary Carson, HUD has undertaken an effort, consistent with Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339), entitled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” to identify and eliminate or streamline regulations that are wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary. In furtherance of this objective, the Secretary has also led HUD's implementation of Executive Order 13777 (82 FR 12285), entitled “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” Executive Order 13777 reaffirms the rulemaking principles of Executive Order 13771 by directing each agency to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force to evaluate existing regulations to identify those that merit repeal, replacement, modification, are outdated, unnecessary, or are ineffective, eliminate or inhibit job creation, impose costs that exceed benefits, or derive from or implement Executive Orders that have been rescinded or significantly modified. This final rule is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.
Under this rule, self-propelled RVs qualify for the RV exemption, insofar as they meet all three RV exemption criteria by definition. For towable RVs, however, the standard for the RV exemption is clarified to provide that the RV must be designed, built, and certified in accordance with one of two national standards: NFPA 1192-15, Standard for Recreational Vehicles; or ANSI A119.5-15, Park Model Recreational Vehicle Standard. These standards are already being used by the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) in its standards, inspection, and self-certification process. HUD concludes that the exemption criteria for towable RVs impose negligible costs on the market of RV manufacturers and consumers.
As far as benefits of the new exemption criteria on the market are concerned, the rule provides regulatory clarity to both RV manufacturers and consumers. HUD's Office of Manufactured Housing receives approximately 4-6 complaints per year
The Manufacturer's Notice, required for an ANSI-certified PMRVs to be exempt from HUD manufactured housing regulation, imposes a negligible or nonexistent burden on industry and provides informational benefit to consumers. RVIA already requires a seal to be affixed to PMRVs meeting the ANSI standard. RVIA's own statement in support of this rule indicates that there will be no additional cost as a result of this notice. RVIA's current seal does not satisfy HUD's standard for the Manufacturer's Notice, however, which provides specific requirements regarding the content and prominence of the notice and which requires the notice to be prominently displayed in the unit and delivered to the consumer before the sale transaction is complete, regardless of whether the transaction occurs online or in person.
Nevertheless, HUD's Manufacturer's Notice requirement is not burdensome. A PMRV manufacturer could satisfy this requirement with at most two printed sheets of paper per PMRV: One in the kitchen, and one delivered to the consumer before the transaction. These sheets could be identical for every PMRV and would not need to be modified between sales. In the case of an online transaction, the seller could deliver the notice to the purchaser by email or include the notice as a document in the transaction process and leave the notice in the kitchen.
RVIA data show that about 4,000 PMRVs are sold each year by 22 manufacturers. The costs of ensuring that a notice is printed, included within a sales packet, and left in the PMRV kitchen are negligible. A simple calculation is that 22 quality managers, one at each PMRV manufacturer, will prepare a manufacturer's notice and include it in their manufacturer information and sales packet, spending up to one hour in the process. A Bureau of Labor Statistics estimate for a quality manager (Managers—All other) mean wage is $54.41 as of May 2017. A loaded wage may be double that. In this scenario, 22 quality managers might incur a cost of $2,394, if this task took them a full hour each year. Printing 8,000 sheets of paper at $0.10 each, a conservative estimate, would yield an additional cost of $800.
This rule can be considered deregulatory, as it imposes only de minimis new costs and creates potential cost savings for consumers and manufacturers by providing additional clarity to inform production and purchasing of RVs. In practice, HUD has not exercised regulatory oversight over RV manufacturers and only seeks to update its regulations to conform to its existing practices. The new exemption criteria are less exacting than the existing criteria, and possibly than industry self-regulation as well. The requirement for a Manufacturer's Notice in the case of PMRVs comes at negligible cost, estimated conservatively at less than $4,000 per year for the entire RV industry. This cost will be easily outweighed by the regulatory clarity that the exemption provides to the RV industry and consumers.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is intended to clarify and effectively expand the RV exemption and ensure that RV manufacturers have a clear understanding of which units qualify to be exempt. In addition to benefiting the consumer by providing clarity regarding the manufactured housing standards used to construct the unit, this rule would reduce the paperwork burden and costs of construction delays on RV manufacturers.
As noted above, there are 22 manufacturers. The small business size standard is 1,000 employees for NAICS Code 336211. Pursuant to the small business size standard, 14 of the 22 manufacturers are small. The final rule would apply to all of them. However, the economic impact will not be significant. This rule's notice requirement, the Manufacturer's Notice in question, may be produced and displayed within a unit at $1.00 expense for each unit to the manufacturer. The average small business will need to prepare an estimated 300 notices per year. As such, a small business may incur $150 in additional costs. Easing the process for RV certification assists manufacturers, while the Manufacturer's Notice requirement supports achievement of the goal of ensuring a clear distinction between RV structures and residential manufactured housing. Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule does not impose any federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector within the meaning of the UMRA.
The information collection requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB Control Number 2502-NEW. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
In its proposed rule, HUD estimated the burden of information collection in the rule and solicited public comments on that estimate. HUD received several public comments regarding the information collection estimate. One comment stated that HUD's proposed information collection was accurate and necessary to carry out the purposes of the proposed rule. Several others, as part of a letter writing campaign, stated that HUD's proposed collection would not enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected. HUD considered the comments and concludes that the Manufacturer's Notice provides important information to prospective purchases of Park Model RVs that may otherwise be uninformed about the design of Park Model RVs for
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment was made at the proposed rule stage in accordance with HUD regulations in 24 CFR part 50 that implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). That FONSI remains applicable to this final rule and is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the FONSI by calling the Regulations Division at 202-402-3055 (this is not a toll-free number).
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either (1) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or (2) the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for the Manufactured Housing Program is 14.171.
Administrative practice and procedure, Consumer protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Investigations, Manufactured homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, HUD amends part 3282 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
28 U.S.C. 2461; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 5403, and 5424.
(a)
(b)
(1) A vehicle or vehicular structure not certified as a manufactured home;
(2) Designed only for recreational use and not as a primary residence or for permanent occupancy; and is either:
(i) Built and certified in accordance with either NFPA 1192 (incorporated by reference, see § 3282.16) or ANSI A119.5 (incorporated by reference, see § 3282.16) as provided by paragraph (c) of this section; or
(ii) Any vehicle which is self-propelled.
(c)
(1)
(2)
The Manufacturer of this unit certifies that it is a Park Model Recreational Vehicle designed only for recreational use, and not for use as a primary residence or for permanent occupancy. The manufacturer of this unit further certifies that this unit has been built in accordance with the ANSI A119.5-15 consensus standard for Park Model Recreational Vehicles.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Department must publish a document in the
(b) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169, telephone number 800-344-3555, website
(1) NFPA 1192, Standard on Recreational Vehicles, 2015 Edition, issued August 14, 2014, IBR approved for § 3282.15(b).
(2) [Reserved]
(c) Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA), 1896 Preston White Drive, Reston, VA 20191, telephone number 703-620-6003, website
(1) ANSI A119.5: Park Model Recreational Vehicle Standard, 2015 Edition, ANSI-approved April 7, 2015, IBR approved for § 3282.15(b).
(2) [Reserved]
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) Railroad Bridge (BNSF Bridge 37.0) across the Snohomish River, mile 3.5 near Everett, WA. The deviation is necessary to accommodate scheduled replacement of bridge ties across the swing span replacement. The deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
This deviation is effective from 11 a.m. on November 26, 2018 to 3 p.m. on December 14, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-1028 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email the Bridge Administrator, Coast Guard Thirteenth District; telephone 206-220-7282 email
BNSF has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the BNSF Bridge 37.0, mile 3.5, across the Snohomish River, near Everett, WA. BNSF requested for BNSF Bridge 37.0 be allowed to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for swing span maintenance. This maintenance will improve the reliability of the bridge for marine openings. The normal operating schedule for the subject bridge is in 33 CFR 117.5. BNSF Bridge 37.0 is a swing bridge and provides 9 feet of vertical clearance above mean high water elevation while in the closed-to-navigation position.
This deviation allows the BNSF Bridge 37.0 to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not open for maritime traffic from 11 a.m. on November 26, 2018 to 3 p.m. on December 14, 2018 per the table below:
The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.5 at all other times. Vessels able to pass through the subject bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridge will be required to open, if needed, for vessels engaged in emergency response operations during this closure period.
Waterway usage on this part of the Snohomish River includes tug and barge to small pleasure craft. The BNSF Bridge 37.0 receives an average number of three opening request during this time of year. BNSF has coordinated with Snohomish River users that frequently request bridge openings during this time of year. An alternate route for vessels to pass is available through Steamboat Slough to the north. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
EPA is withdrawing significant new use rules (SNURs) promulgated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 28 chemical substances, which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). EPA published these SNURs using direct final rulemaking procedures, which requires EPA to take certain actions if an adverse comment is received. EPA received adverse comments and a request to extend the comment period regarding the SNURs
The direct final rule published at 83 FR 47004 on September 17, 2018 is withdrawn effective November 16, 2018.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0567, is available at
A list of potentially affected entities is provided in the
In the
EPA determined that this document is not subject to the 30-day delay of effective date generally required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(d)) because of the time limitations for publication in the
This action withdraws regulatory requirements that have not gone into effect and which contain no new or amended requirements and reopens a comment period. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have any adverse impacts, economic or otherwise. The statutory and Executive Order review requirements applicable to the direct final rules were discussed in the September 17, 2018
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule invites comments on a recommendation made by the California Olive Committee (Committee) to establish procedures to conduct meetings and voting using electronic means of communication.
Comments must be received by December 17, 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:
Peter Sommers, Marketing Specialist, or 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 to amend regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 932, as amended (7 CFR part 932), regulating the handling of olives grown in California. Part 932 (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 California Olive Committee (Committee) locally administers the Order and is comprised of producers and handlers of olives 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 action 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. This proposed rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
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.
On May 17, 2018 (83 FR 22831), the Agricultural Marketing Service published a final rule amending 7 CFR part 900, the general regulations for federal fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders, to authorize the use of electronic means of communication for meetings and voting.
During a meeting on June 13, 2018, the Committee unanimously recommended adoption of modern communication methods to conduct Committee meetings, as outlined in the
The Order currently states that the Committee may only meet in assembled, in-person, meetings and that voting may only be conducted at meetings or via mail or telegraph. Such limitations present logistical problems for many Committee members since membership is widely distributed across California. Some members travel over 400 miles to attend a Committee meeting, thus resulting in lost work hours for the members and increased costs for the Committee.
Allowing the Committee to conduct meetings via electronic means of communication would likely result in increased member participation and productivity at a reduced cost, as well as greater potential for meeting quorum and voting requirements.
The Committee recommended that audio or audiovisual technology (AVT)
Regarding casting votes electronically or by email, the Committee proposed that such votes be subject to the same requirements currently in effect for mail voting in § 932.36. These requirements state that advanced notice, as well as an accurate, full and identical description of the issues to be voted on, be given to all members. For a recommendation to pass, at least 14 affirmative votes representing seven producer and seven handler members are required.
The Committee recommended these changes to provide an opportunity to conduct meetings more efficiently and cost-effectively; use of audio and or audiovisual communication technology would result in time and cost savings to the Committee and its members by allowing for meetings to be conducted with all or a portion of its membership attending by audio and or AVT.
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 action 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 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 1,100 producers of olives in the production area and two handlers subject to regulation under the Order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
Based on National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) information, the average price to producers for the 2017 crop year was $974.00 per ton, and total assessable volume for the 2017 crop year was 83,799 tons. Based on production, price paid to producers, and the total number of California olive producers, the average annual producer revenue is less than $750,000 ($974.00 times 83,799 tons equals $81,620,226, divided by 1,100 producers equals an average annual producer revenue of $74,200). Based on Committee data, both handlers may be classified as large entities under the SBA's definitions because their annual receipts are greater than $7,500,000.
This proposed rule would not impose additional costs on handlers or producers of any size. Committee members are expected to see a reduction in their travel expenses and time lost from work in order to attend Committee meetings in person. Thus, this proposed rule would reduce the cost burden on both handlers and producers.
The Committee considered the alternative of making no changes to the regulations. However, it was determined that by taking no action, the Committee would be unnecessarily limiting the participation of some members due to time constraints and travel considerations. Therefore, the Committee determined that recommending this change was in the best interest of the Committee, its members, and the industry.
Like all Committee meetings, the June 13, 2018, meeting was public and was widely publicized throughout the production area. All entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue and participate in Committee deliberations. Following the meeting, ballots along with the proposed procedures were sent to all Committee members on July 31, 2018, and the mail vote concluded on August 17, 2018. The proposal received unanimous support.
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 OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 Vegetable 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 impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California olive 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 action.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. All written comments timely received will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter.
Marketing agreements, Olives, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
The Committee may conduct meetings by any means of audio and/or audiovisual communication technology available that effectively assembles members and alternates, and facilitates open communication;
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
On September 28, 2018, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
The comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking published on September 28, 2018 (83 FR 49001) is extended until December 18, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3245-AG74, by any of the following methods: (1) Federal Rulemaking Portal:
Robert Carpenter, Acting Chief, 7(a) Policy & Program Branch, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Financial Assistance, 409 3rd Street SW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; telephone: (202) 619-1654; email:
On September 28, 2018, SBA published a notice of proposed rulemaking at 83 FR 49001 to solicit comments on the Express loan program, affiliation standards, and other miscellaneous amendments to SBA business loan programs. This proposed rulemaking, which is identified by RIN 3245-AG74, is also available at
SBA received a formal request from several trade associations that represent participants in SBA's business loan programs to extend the comment period on this proposed rulemaking for an additional 60 days. After considering the request, SBA decided to extend the comment period an additional 15 business days until December 18, 2018. This extension will give commenters additional time to consider the proposed rulemaking and submit comments.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for public comment.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) is publishing for comment a proposed rule to implement the credit monitoring provisions applicable to active duty military consumers in section 302 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, which amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). That section requires nationwide consumer reporting agencies to provide a free electronic credit monitoring service to active duty military consumers, subject to certain conditions. The proposed rule defines “electronic credit monitoring service,” “contact information,” “material additions or modifications to the file of a consumer,” and “appropriate proof of identity,” among other terms. It also contains requirements on how nationwide consumer reporting agencies must verify that an individual is an active duty military consumer.
Written comments must be received on or before January 7, 2019.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the Request for Comment part of the
Amanda Koulousias (202-326-3334), Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (“the Act”) was signed into law on May 24, 2018. Public Law 115-174. The Act, among other things, amends section 605A of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681c-1 to add a section 605A(k). Section 605A(k)(2) requires that nationwide consumer reporting agencies provide free electronic credit monitoring services to active duty military consumers.
Section 605A(k)(3) of the FCRA requires the Commission to issue a
The proposed rule applies to nationwide consumer reporting agencies, as defined in section 603(p) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681a(p). The proposed rule requires the nationwide consumer reporting agencies to provide a free electronic credit monitoring service that notifies a consumer of material additions or modifications to the consumer's file when the consumer provides (1) contact information, (2) appropriate proof that the consumer is an active duty military consumer, and (3) appropriate proof of identity. The proposed rule specifies that the nationwide consumer reporting agency must provide notification to the consumer within 24 hours of the material addition or modification. The proposed rule also requires that the notices to consumers include a hyperlink to a summary of the consumer's rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as prescribed by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection under 15 U.S.C. 1681g(c).
The proposed rule defines certain key terms. Specifically, the proposed rule defines “electronic credit monitoring service” as a service through which nationwide consumer reporting agencies provide, at a minimum, electronic notification of material additions or modifications to a consumer's file. Electronic notification may include notification by website, mobile application, email, or text message. In addition, the proposed rule defines “material additions or modifications” as significant changes to a consumer's file, including: (1) New accounts opened in the consumer's name; (2) inquiries or requests for a consumer report; (3) changes to a consumer's name, address, or phone number; (4) changes to credit account limits; and (5) negative information, which is separately defined to include information concerning a customer's delinquencies, late payments, insolvency, or any form of default. The term “material additions or modifications” excludes requests for prescreened lists and requests to review a consumer's account, as discussed further below.
The proposed rule also specifies what constitutes appropriate proof that the consumer is an active duty military consumer. Under the proposed rule, appropriate proof includes a copy of the consumer's active duty orders; a certification of active duty status issued by the Department of Defense; verification obtained through a method or service approved by the Department of Defense; or a certification of active duty status approved by the nationwide consumer reporting agency.
Further, the proposed rule restricts nationwide consumer reporting agencies' ability to use and disclose the information they collect from consumers in order to provide the required electronic credit monitoring service. The nationwide consumer reporting agencies may use and disclose the information they collect from consumers only for the following: (1) To provide the free electronic credit monitoring service requested by the consumer; (2) to process a transaction requested by the consumer at the same time as a request for the free electronic credit monitoring service; (3) to comply with applicable legal requirements; or (4) to update information already maintained by the nationwide consumer reporting agency for the purpose of providing consumer reports.
Additionally, the proposed rule contains some limitations on communications surrounding enrollment in an electronic credit monitoring service. First, the proposed rule prohibits any advertising or marketing to a consumer who has indicated an interest in obtaining the free electronic credit monitoring service for active duty military consumers until after the consumer has enrolled in the service. Second, the proposed rule does not allow any communications or instructions that interfere with, detract from, contradict, or otherwise undermine the purpose of the proposed rule. Prohibited communications include materials that represent, expressly or by implication, that an active duty military consumer must purchase a paid product or service in order to receive the service required under § 609.3(a). They also include materials that falsely represent, expressly or by implication, that a product or service offered ancillary to the free electronic credit monitoring service, such as identity theft insurance, is free. The proposed rule also prohibits any advertising or marketing for a free service, without clearly and prominently disclosing that consumers must cancel the service to avoid being charged, if such is the case.
Finally, the proposed rule prohibits asking or requiring an active duty military consumer to agree to terms or conditions in connection with obtaining a free electronic credit monitoring service.
Proposed § 609.1 sets forth the scope of the Commission's rule and generally tracks the statutory language in section 605A(k)(2) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 15 U.S.C. 1681c-1(k)(2). It implements the requirement that nationwide consumer reporting agencies, as defined in section 603(p) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681a(p), provide a free electronic credit monitoring service to active duty military consumers that, at a minimum, notifies them of any material additions or modifications to their files.
Proposed § 609.2 contains definitions for the following terms: “active duty military consumer,” “appropriate proof of identity,” “consumer,” “consumer report,” “contact information,” “credit,” “electronic credit monitoring service,” “electronic notification,” “file,” “firm offer of credit,” “free,” “material additions or modifications,” “nationwide consumer reporting agency,” and “negative information.”
Proposed paragraphs (a), (c), (d), (f), (i), (j), (m), and (n) incorporate the FCRA's statutory definitions of “active duty military consumer,” “consumer,” “consumer report,” “credit,” “file,” “firm offer of credit,” “nationwide consumer reporting agency,” and “negative information.” Each of these terms is used in the proposed rule.
Proposed paragraph (b) defines “appropriate proof of identity” as having the same meaning as set forth in 12 CFR 1022.123. Although the statute requires only that consumer reporting agencies obtain contact information and appropriate proof of active duty military status before providing electronic credit monitoring to military consumers, the proposed rule adds language that would permit the nationwide consumer reporting agencies to request appropriate proof of identity before providing a military consumer with the statutorily required credit monitoring service.
The Commission believes that, before providing sensitive consumer report information to a military consumer in
The proposed rule defines “appropriate proof of identity” by cross-referencing 12 CFR 1022.123. This existing definition was established to provide guidance on what information consumers should be required to provide to constitute proof of identity for purposes of FCRA sections 605A (obtaining a fraud alert), 605B (requesting that information resulting from identity theft be blocked from one's consumer report), and 609(a)(1) (requesting a file disclosure from a consumer reporting agency). This definition is risk-based, meaning that a consumer reporting agency's policy with respect to appropriate proof of identity should be commensurate with the risk of harm to the consumer resulting from misidentification, and should not unreasonably restrict a consumer's access to statutorily required services.
Because consumer reporting agencies already are required to implement procedures for obtaining appropriate proof of identity under 12 CFR 1022.123, the Commission believes it would be efficient to permit consumer reporting agencies to comply with the proposed rule by using the same requirements, already in place.
The Commission is soliciting comments on whether the rule should cross-reference 12 CFR 1022.123, stay silent on the definition, or develop a different approach.
Proposed paragraph (e) contains a definition of “contact information.” The statute allows nationwide consumer reporting agencies to condition provision of the free electronic credit monitoring service to those consumers that provide both appropriate proof that they are active duty military consumers and contact information. The Commission believes that clarifying the term “contact information” is beneficial to the nationwide consumer reporting agencies and consumers. Nationwide consumer reporting agencies need a minimal amount of information from a consumer in order to provide the free credit monitoring service. Accordingly, the proposed rule defines “contact information” as information about a consumer, such as a consumer's first and last name and email address, that is reasonably necessary to collect in order to provide the electronic credit monitoring service.
Proposed paragraph (g) defines “electronic credit monitoring service” as a service through which nationwide consumer reporting agencies provide electronic notifications of material additions or modifications to a consumer's file. Section 605A(k)(3) of the FCRA specifically requires the Commission to define this term. The Commission believes that this definition and the accompanying definitions of “material addition or modification” and “electronic notification” provide the detail necessary for nationwide consumer reporting agencies to provide the credit monitoring required by the statute.
Proposed paragraph (h) defines “electronic notification” as a notice provided to the consumer via a website; mobile application; email; or text message. The Commission wants to give the nationwide consumer reporting agencies and consumers the flexibility to communicate in a manner that is most convenient for them. Currently, the nationwide consumer reporting agencies typically send customers of their commercial credit monitoring services an email alerting them that changes have been made to their files. Customers then log in to the consumer reporting agency's website to see the specific changes that have occurred. Other commercial credit monitoring services provide a mobile application through which they notify customers of changes to their consumer reports. In addition to these methods, the Commission believes some consumers would find the option of receiving notifications via text message convenient. However, the Commission notes, that any nationwide consumer reporting agency electing to provide consumers the option of receiving notifications via text message must comply with Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, and all other applicable laws and requirements. The Commission welcomes comment on this proposed definition of electronic notification.
Proposed paragraph (k) defines “free” as being provided at no cost to the consumer. This definition comes from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. The Commission seeks comment on whether a definition of “free” is necessary, and if so, whether it should include any additional requirements.
Proposed paragraph (
The changes set forth in (1)-(5) above are material because they can indicate that a consumer is the victim of identity theft or other fraud. The sooner a consumer is alerted to these changes, the sooner the consumer can begin to mitigate harm. Notifications of these changes are included in many of the credit monitoring products available commercially today.
The definition also includes any other “significant changes to a consumer's file.” The enumerated list is not exhaustive, and nationwide consumer reporting agencies may elect to provide notification of other significant changes to a consumer's file. There may be other information that is useful to particular types of consumers or other significant changes that the Commission cannot contemplate today. Therefore, the Commission believes that the nationwide consumer reporting agencies should have discretion to include additional significant changes to a consumer's file within their free electronic credit monitoring service.
At the same time, the Commission proposes that the definition of “material additions or modifications” specifically exclude (1) inquiries for a prescreened list obtained for the purpose of making a firm offer of credit or insurance as described in 15 U.S.C. 1681b(c)(1)(B), and (2) inquiries for the purpose of reviewing an account of the consumer (“account review”). As to inquiries for prescreened lists, while most credit inquiries signal that a consumer is affirmatively seeking credit and may affect their credit scores, inquiries for prescreened lists are made without consumers' knowledge or specific consent and do not affect their credit scores. Consumers may opt out of
Similarly, inquiries made for purposes of account review, such as when a credit card issuer reviews a customer's credit file in order to determine whether to change the annual percentage rate (“APR”) on a credit card, also do not indicate that a consumer is shopping for credit. These account review inquiries may not result in any changes to the consumer's credit account. In cases where account review does result in a change to the consumer's credit account, such as by increasing the APR on a credit card, the creditor must send the consumer a risk-based pricing notice.
Proposed § 609.3 establishes the basic rules surrounding the provision of free electronic credit monitoring to active duty military consumers. Paragraph (a) states the general requirement that nationwide consumer reporting agencies must provide a free electronic credit monitoring service to active duty military consumers.
Proposed § 609.3(b) allows nationwide consumer reporting agencies to condition the provision of the free electronic credit monitoring service upon the consumer providing appropriate proof of identity, contact information, and appropriate proof that the consumer is an active duty military consumer. The Act itself specifically states that nationwide consumer reporting agencies need only provide the free electronic credit monitoring to consumers that provide contact information and appropriate proof of active duty military status.
The Commission also proposes to include the condition that consumers provide the nationwide consumer reporting agencies with appropriate proof of identity. Consumer report information is very sensitive and it is imperative that consumers only receive credit monitoring of their own file. The Commission is proposing to define “appropriate proof of identity” by cross-referencing 12 CFR 1022.123, as explained in further detail above.
Proposed paragraph (c) fulfills the statutory requirement that the Commission determine what constitutes appropriate proof of active duty military status. The proposed rule allows active duty military status to be verified through: (1) A copy of the consumer's active duty military orders; (2) a copy of a certification of active duty status issued by the Department of Defense; (3) a method or service approved by the Department of Defense; or (4) a certification of active duty status approved by the nationwide consumer reporting agency.
The first two methods require consumers to provide nationwide consumer reporting agencies with documents verifying their active duty status. The third method—one approved by the Department of Defense—anticipates future developments in this area. The Commission understands from the Department of Defense that there is not currently an automated method by which nationwide consumer reporting agencies may obtain notice of a consumer's active duty military status from the Department of Defense for the purpose of fulfilling their obligations under this proposed rule. If such a method does become available, however, this language makes sure it would suffice as “appropriate proof of active duty military status” under the proposed rule. The Commission defers to the Department of Defense on what methods it may determine are appropriate to prove active duty status.
The fourth method would allow any nationwide consumer reporting agency to develop its own method for determining proof of active duty military status. The Commission believes that it may be burdensome for consumers and the nationwide consumer reporting agencies to have a system that requires documents to be uploaded in order to confirm active duty status. In an effort to provide nationwide consumer reporting agencies the flexibility to design a less burdensome method of proof, the proposed rule allows them to approve other certifications of status. For example, the proposed rule would allow the nationwide consumer reporting agencies to accept consumers' self-certification of active duty military status,
The Commission welcomes comment on the efficacy of these methods, and whether there are other methods of determining active duty military status that it should add to the definition.
Proposed § 609.3(d) limits nationwide consumer reporting agencies' use and disclosure of information they collect from consumers as a result of a consumer's request to obtain the free electronic credit monitoring service. Specifically, the proposed rule allows nationwide consumer reporting agencies to use and disclose information collected from consumers only: (1) To provide the free electronic credit monitoring service requested by the consumer; (2) to process a transaction requested by the consumer at the same time as a request for the free electronic credit monitoring service; (3) to comply with applicable legal requirements; or (4) to update information already maintained by the nationwide consumer reporting agency for the purpose of providing consumer reports. Under (4), if a nationwide consumer reporting agency updates information it maintains for consumer reporting purposes, the updated information is subject to the same restrictions that apply to the original, pre-updated data. These restrictions on use and disclosure are identical to the requirements placed on the nationwide consumer reporting agencies' collection of personally identifiable information from consumers using the centralized source found in 12 CFR 1022.136(f). Restricting “secondary” use and disclosure of information collected from active duty military consumers seeking to obtain the free electronic credit monitoring service ensures that these consumers will not be subjected to unintended consequences, such as unwanted marketing. Additionally, the Commission does not believe that it would be appropriate to make an active duty military consumer's access to the free electronic credit
The proposed rule does allow information collected from consumers as part of the free electronic credit monitoring enrollment process to be used to process transaction requests made by consumers at the same time. This provision allows consumers to avoid having to reenter information in order to obtain products and services separate from the free electronic credit monitoring. For example, a consumer would not have to reenter information if, after enrolling in the free electronic credit monitoring service, the consumer decided to also obtain identity theft insurance. The proposed rule also permits nationwide consumer reporting agencies to use and disclose information in order to comply with all applicable legal requirements. Finally, the proposed rule permits nationwide consumer reporting agencies to use the information collected to update information they already maintain for consumer reporting purposes, but does not permit them to add additional information that they do not already collect from other sources. The Commission seeks comments on whether these restrictions are appropriate and whether any modifications to the proposed restrictions are necessary.
Proposed § 609.3(e) places limitations on the types of communications that may surround enrollment in the electronic credit monitoring service. Section 609.3(e)(1) restricts any advertising or marketing for products or services, or any communications or instructions that advertise or market any products and services to a consumer that has indicated an interest in signing up for the free electronic credit monitoring service until after the consumer has enrolled in the service. This restriction is similar to the restriction on advertising on the annual credit report website found in 12 CFR 1022.136(g). The goal of including a similar requirement is to ensure that the Act's purpose of providing active duty military consumers with a free electronic credit monitoring service is not thwarted by confusing advertisements or communications that dissuade active duty military consumers from enrolling in the free service. The proposed requirement is not intended to ban advertising on all web pages of the nationwide consumer reporting agencies. Instead, it seeks to limit advertising directed to those consumers who have indicated that they want to enroll in the free credit monitoring for active duty military consumers. Thus, for example, the proposed requirement would apply only to the pages on a nationwide consumer reporting agency's website or app dedicated to providing active duty military consumers with their rights under this regulation. The Commission appreciates that this restriction on advertising may increase costs to the nationwide consumer reporting agencies by, among other things, requiring them to create separate enrollment processes for active duty military consumers. The Commission requests comment on whether this restriction is consistent with the authority granted under the Act and necessary to ensure that active duty military consumers are able to enroll easily in the free electronic credit monitoring service.
Section 609.3(e)(2) of the proposed rule specifies that any communications, instructions, or permitted advertising or marketing may not interfere with, detract from, contradict, or otherwise undermine the purpose of providing a free electronic credit monitoring service to active duty military consumers. The proposed rule provides examples of conduct that would interfere with, detract from, contradict, or undermine the purpose of the rule. For example, a nationwide consumer reporting agency would be prohibited from providing materials that represent, expressly or by implication, that in order to obtain the free credit monitoring service, active duty military consumers must also purchase identity theft insurance. This limitation on communications is identical to 12 CFR 1022.136(g)'s requirements for the centralized source for free annual file disclosures.
Sections 609.3(e)(1) and (2) are complementary and are designed to ensure that active duty military consumers are not confused or deceived by communications related to a nationwide consumer reporting agency's products and services. Using the example of the identity theft insurance product described above, section 609.3(e)(1) would prohibit any advertising of such a product from the time the consumer indicates an interest in obtaining free credit monitoring for active duty military until after that consumer has enrolled in the service. Section 609.3(e)(2) applies to any advertising before the consumer indicates such an interest, or after the consumer has enrolled in the service. It also applies to non-advertising communications or instructions relating to the free electronic credit monitoring service.
The Commission recognizes that if done appropriately, access to some identity theft services—such as identity theft insurance—may be beneficial and convenient for consumers. The Commission wants to ensure, however, that these additional services are not offered in a way that is confusing to active duty military consumers or dissuades them from enrolling in the free electronic credit monitoring service that they are entitled to under the Act. The Commission solicits comment on whether this restriction is consistent with the authority granted under the Act and necessary to ensure that active duty military consumers can easily obtain the free credit monitoring service.
Proposed § 609.3(f) prohibits asking or requiring an active duty military consumer to agree to terms or conditions in connection with obtaining a free electronic credit monitoring service. This restriction is similar to the restriction for the annual credit report website found in 12 CFR 1022.136(h). The Commission believes that an active duty military consumer's right to obtain a free electronic credit monitoring service should be unfettered and without any restrictions or conditions, apart from providing appropriate proof of identity, contact information, and appropriate proof that the consumer is an active duty military consumer. The Commission solicits comment on whether this restriction is consistent with authority granted under the Act and necessary to ensure that active duty military consumers can easily obtain the free credit monitoring service.
Proposed § 609.4 requires that the notices required under § 609.3(a) be provided within 24 hours of any material additions or modifications to a consumer's file. Advertisements for commercial credit monitoring services that are currently on the market suggest that consumers can be notified of changes to their files as soon as those changes are detected. Therefore, the Commission believes that 24 hours provides ample time for the nationwide consumer reporting agencies to give an electronic notification to affected consumers.
Proposed § 609.5 states that the electronic notifications shall include a hyperlink to a summary of the consumer's rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as prescribed by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection under 15 U.S.C. 1681g(c). The Commission believes that it will be useful for consumers to be able to easily access information about their rights to, for example, obtain consumer reports and dispute information on their reports. Including a link to the summary with each electronic notification will ensure that consumers can find that information when it may be most useful to them. The Commission welcomes comment on this proposed requirement.
Proposed § 609.6 states that the provisions of the proposed rule are separate and severable from one another, so that if any provision is stayed or determined to be invalid, it is the Commission's intention that the remaining provisions shall continue in effect.
The Commission seeks comment on various aspects of the proposed rule. Without limiting the scope of issues on which it seeks comment, the FTC is particularly interested in receiving comments on the questions that follow. In responding to these questions, please include detailed factual supporting information if possible.
1. Does the definition of “electronic credit monitoring service” adequately describe the service that the proposed rule should cover? If not, how should the definition be modified?
2. Does the definition of “material additions or modifications” adequately cover the changes to a consumer's file that should require notification? If not, what other elements should be added to the definition? Should changes to credit account limits remain in the definition? What benefits to consumers would notifications of account limit changes provide?
3. The proposed rule does not require notice to be given if an inquiry was made for a prescreened list obtained for the purpose of making a firm offer of credit or insurance as described in 15 U.S.C. 1681b(c)(1)(B) or for the purpose of account review. Are these exceptions appropriate? Are there other exceptions that should be added to the proposed rule?
4. The proposed rule requires notice to be given if an inquiry is made for the purpose of collection of an account of the consumer. Do nationwide consumer reporting agencies have the ability to differentiate between inquiries made for the purposes of account review and collection?
5. Is the definition of “electronic notification” adequate? Are there other methods of notification that should be included in the definition?
6. Is the definition of “appropriate proof of identity” necessary? Is the current definition, referencing the requirements of 12 CFR 1022.123 appropriate? Is there a better approach to determining what constitutes “appropriate proof of identity?” What procedures are consumer reporting agencies currently employing to comply with 12 CFR 1022.123? Do consumer reporting agencies currently require customers of commercial credit monitoring services to provide appropriate proof of identity? If so, what proof of identity is being required?
1. The proposed rule states that “appropriate proof of active duty military status” can be verified through: (1) A copy of the consumer's active duty orders; (2) a copy of a certification of active duty status issued by the Department of Defense; (3) a method or service approved by the Department of Defense; or (4) a certification of active duty status approved by the nationwide consumer reporting agency. Are these methods adequate? Are there other methods of verifying active duty status that should be included? What is the most efficient method for providing nationwide consumer reporting agencies with proof of active duty military status? Is it burdensome for consumers to provide appropriate proof? Is there a way to minimize the burden?
2. Proposed § 609.3(d) restricts secondary uses and disclosures of information collected from a consumer requesting to obtain the service required under § 609.3(a). Is this limitation necessary to ensure that consumers seeking to obtain the free electronic credit monitoring service are not forced to provide personal information for unrelated, secondary purposes?
3. Proposed § 609.3(d) allows nationwide consumer reporting agencies to use and disclose information collected from consumers requesting to obtain the service required under § 609.3(a) only: (1) To provide the free electronic credit monitoring service requested by the consumer; (2) to process a transaction requested by the consumer at the same time as a request for the free electronic credit monitoring service; (3) to comply with specific legal requirements; or (4) to update information already maintained by the nationwide consumer reporting agency for the purpose of providing consumer reports, provided that the nationwide consumer reporting agency uses and discloses the updated information subject to the same restrictions that would apply, under any applicable provision of law or regulation, to the information updated or replaced. Are these approved uses appropriate? Are there additional uses that should be permitted?
4. Proposed § 609.3(e)(1) bans marketing until after a consumer who has indicated an interest in obtaining the service required under § 609.3(a) has enrolled in the free electronic credit monitoring service. Is this limitation necessary to ensure that active duty military consumers are able easily to obtain their free electronic credit monitoring service? Does this limitation impose undue burdens on nationwide consumer reporting agencies? If so, is there a way to minimize these burdens?
5. Proposed § 609.3(e)(2) prohibits any communications, instructions, or permitted advertising or marketing from interfering with, detracting from, contradicting, or otherwise undermining the purpose of providing a free electronic credit monitoring service to active duty military consumers. Is this prohibition necessary?
6. Section 609.3(e)(3) provides the following examples of prohibited conduct: (1) Any representation that an active duty military consumer must purchase a paid product or service in order to obtain the free electronic credit monitoring service required by § 609.3(a); (2) a false representation that a product or service ancillary to receipt of the free electronic credit monitoring service, such as identity theft insurance, is free; or (3) the offering of an ongoing service without a clear and prominent disclosure that the consumer must cancel the service to avoid being charged. Are there more examples of prohibited conduct that should be included in the proposed rule? Should “clearly and prominently” be defined?
7. Proposed § 609.3(f) prohibits asking or requiring an active duty military consumer to agree to terms or conditions in connection with obtaining a free electronic credit monitoring service. Is this prohibition necessary to ensure that active duty military consumers are able easily to obtain their free electronic credit monitoring service? Do consumer reporting agencies currently require customers of
1. The proposed rule also requires that these notices be provided within 24 hours of any material additions or modifications to a consumer's file. Is this time requirement appropriate?
1. The proposed rule requires that the electronic notifications include a link to the summary of the consumer's rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Will requiring this link provide useful information to consumers or is there different information that would be more useful? Is there a different method of providing this information that would be more effective?
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before January 7, 2019. Write “Military Credit Monitoring Rulemaking, Matter No. R811007” on the comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public FTC website, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Military Credit Monitoring Rulemaking, Matter No. R811007” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20580; or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610, Washington, DC 20024. If possible, please submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC website to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before January 7, 2019. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral communications respecting the merits of this proceeding, from any outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner's advisor, will be placed on the public record.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, requires federal agencies to seek and obtain OMB approval before undertaking a collection of information directed to ten or more persons.
As the proposed notification requirements fall upon the three nationwide consumer reporting agencies, it does not meet the PRA threshold count of ten or more persons to constitute a “collection of information.” Further, the proof of identity the proposed rule would require of those for whom the rulemaking is designed to benefit, consumers on active duty military status, falls within OMB's general exception for disclosures that require persons to provide or display only facts necessary to identify themselves.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires an agency to either provide an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with a proposed rule, or certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 115-174, directs the Commission to promulgate regulations to implement section 302(d)(1) of the Act, which shall at a minimum: (1) Define “electronic credit monitoring service” and “material additions or modifications to the file of a consumer,” and (2) establish what constitutes appropriate proof that a consumer is an active duty military consumer. In this action, the Commission proposes, and seeks comment on, a rule that would fulfill the statutory mandate. The Act requires that the Commission promulgate this rule not later than one year after the date of enactment, or May 24, 2019.
The objectives of the proposed Rule are discussed above. The legal basis for the proposed rule is section 302(d) of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.
The proposed rule will apply only to nationwide consumer reporting agencies. The Commission has not identified any nationwide consumer reporting agencies that are small entities.
Under the proposed rule, nationwide consumer reporting agencies will have to provide free electronic credit monitoring services to active duty military consumers. There are no reporting or recordkeeping requirements, or types of professional skills necessary for preparation of any such report or record, under the proposed rule. In any event, as noted earlier, the proposed rule applies only to nationwide consumer reporting agencies, and they are not small entities.
The Commission has not identified any other federal statutes, rules, or policies that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule. The proposed definitions and requirements of the proposed rule have been designed to work in conjunction with the existing definitions and requirements found in the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681
The Commission has not identified any particular alternative methods of compliance as necessary to reduce burdens on small entities, because the Commission does not believe any nationwide consumer reporting agencies subject to the proposed rule are small entities, as noted earlier.
Consumer reporting agencies, Consumer reports, Credit, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Trade practices.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Trade Commission proposes to amend chapter I, title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
15 U.S.C. 1681c-1(k).
This part implements Section 605A(k)(2) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681c-1(k)(2), which requires consumer reporting agencies that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis to provide a free electronic credit monitoring service to active duty military consumers that, at a minimum, notifies them of any material additions or modifications to their files.
For purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(1) A website;
(2) Mobile application;
(3) Email; or
(4) Text message.
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(1) New accounts opened in the consumer's name;
(2) Inquiries or requests for a consumer report;
(i) However, an inquiry made for a prescreened list obtained for the purpose of making a firm offer of credit or insurance as described in 15 U.S.C. 1681b(c)(1)(B) or for the purpose of reviewing an account of the consumer shall not be considered a material addition or modification.
(ii) [Reserved].
(3) Changes to a consumer's name, address, or phone number;
(4) Changes to credit account limits; and
(5) Negative information.
(m)
(n)
(a)
(b)
(1) Appropriate proof of identity,
(2) Contact information, and
(3) Appropriate proof that the consumer is an active duty military consumer.
(c)
(1) A copy of the consumer's active duty orders;
(2) A copy of a certification of active duty status issued by the Department of Defense;
(3) A method or service approved by the Department of Defense; or
(4) A certification of active duty status approved by the nationwide consumer reporting agency.
(d)
(1) To provide the free electronic credit monitoring service requested by the consumer;
(2) To process a transaction requested by the consumer at the same time as a request for the free electronic credit monitoring service;
(3) To comply with applicable legal requirements; or
(4) To update information already maintained by the nationwide consumer reporting agency for the purpose of providing consumer reports, provided that the nationwide consumer reporting agency uses and discloses the updated information subject to the same restrictions that would apply, under any applicable provision of law or regulation, to the information updated or replaced.
(e)
(2) Any communications, instructions, or permitted advertising or marketing shall not interfere with, detract from, contradict, or otherwise undermine the purpose of providing a free electronic credit monitoring service to active duty military consumers that notifies them of any material additions or modifications to their files.
(3) Examples of interfering, detracting, inconsistent, and/or undermining communications include:
(i) Materials that represent, expressly or by implication, that an active duty military consumer must purchase a paid product or service in order to receive the service required under paragraph (a) of this section; or
(ii) Materials that falsely represent, expressly or by implication, that a product or service offered ancillary to receipt of the free electronic credit monitoring service, such as identity theft insurance, is free, or that fail to clearly and prominently disclose that consumers must cancel a service, advertised as free for an initial period of time, to avoid being charged, if such is the case.
(f)
The notice required in section 609.3(a) must be provided within 24 hours of any material additions or modifications to a consumer's file.
The notice required in section 609.3(a) shall include a hyperlink to a summary of the consumer's rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as prescribed by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection under 15 U.S.C. 1681g(c).
The provisions of this part are separate and severable from one another. If any provision is stayed, or determined to be invalid, it is the Commission's intention that the remaining provisions shall continue in effect.
By direction of the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule, withdrawal of proposed rule.
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a portion of an Oklahoma State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal that pertains to the good neighbor provision requirements of the CAA with respect to interstate transport of air pollution which will interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The good neighbor provision requires, in part, that each state, in its SIP, prohibit emissions that will interfere with maintenance of a new or revised NAAQS in another state. In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the Oklahoma SIP submittal as having met the interfere with maintenance requirement of the good neighbor provision for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in accordance with section 110 of the CAA. EPA is also withdrawing its October 17, 2011 proposed rule to disapprove this portion of Oklahoma SIP submittal.
Written comments must be received on or before December 17, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0314, at
Carl Young, 214-665-6645,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
Under section 109 of the CAA, we are required to establish NAAQS that are protective of human health (primary NAAQS) and public welfare (secondary NAAQS). In 1997, we established new primary and secondary 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million (July 18, 1997, 62 FR 38856).
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit, within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting the applicable “infrastructure” elements of sections 110(a)(2). One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain “good neighbor” provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four sub-elements within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). The first two sub-elements are to prohibit emissions to any other state which would (1) significantly contribute to nonattainment or (2) interfere with maintenance of the new or revised NAAQS. The State of Oklahoma provided a May 1, 2007 SIP submittal to address these two sub-elements. The portion of the submittal addressing sub-element 1 (prohibit significant contribution to nonattainment in other states) was approved on December 29, 2011 (76 FR 81838). This action addresses the second sub-element of that submittal (prohibit interference with maintenance in other states).
The EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in several past regulatory actions. Most relevant to this action, EPA promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) in 2005 to address the requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 1997 (fine particulate) (PM
In 2011, we promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to address the remand of CAIR.
The CSAPR set emissions budgets which were to be implemented in two phases, with phase 1 to be implemented beginning with the 2012 ozone season and phase 2 to be implemented beginning with the 2014 ozone season. However, the CSAPR budgets were stayed by the D.C. Circuit in December 2011 pending further litigation. The D.C. Circuit issued a decision in
On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion on CSAPR regarding the remaining legal issues raised by the petitioners on remand from the Supreme Court,
Various petitioners also filed legal challenges in the D.C. Circuit to the 2011 supplemental rule that promulgated a FIP for four states including Oklahoma.
As noted above, relevant to this proposed action, Oklahoma made a May 1, 2007 SIP submittal to address CAA requirements to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in other states. Oklahoma provided additional information pertaining to the requirements in a supplemental December 5, 2007 letter. The submittals document the State's assessments that Oklahoma emissions will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in other states.
Consistent with EPA guidance at the time and EPA's approach in the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), the State's May 1, 2007 submittal focused primarily on whether emissions from Oklahoma sources significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in other states.
Because EPA's 2011 CSAPR modeling projected that Oklahoma would be linked to a downwind maintenance receptor with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, but not to a nonattainment receptor, EPA proposed to approve the portion of the SIP submittal asserting that Oklahoma emissions do not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states (76 FR 64065, October 17, 2011).
Because EPA's CSAPR modeling projected that Oklahoma would be linked to a downwind maintenance receptor with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, we proposed to disapprove, or in the alternative, approve, the portion of the May 7, 2007 SIP submittal asserting that Oklahoma does not interfere with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states (76 FR 64065, October 17, 2011). We proposed to finalize our approval or disapproval action based on the final action for Oklahoma in the then-proposed supplemental CSAPR rule.
More recent information provides support for our proposed approval of the conclusion in the SIP submittals that the State will not interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in any other state. As discussed above, air quality modeling conducted for the 2011 CSAPR rulemaking projected that emissions from Oklahoma would be linked to a maintenance receptor in Allegan County, Michigan, in 2012. In CSAPR, we used air quality projections for the year 2012, which was also the intended start year for implementation of the CSAPR Phase 1 EGU emission budgets, to identify receptors projected to have air quality problems. The CSAPR final rule record also contained air quality projections for 2014, which was the intended start year for
As discussed above, in light of the remand of 10 other states' CSAPR phase 2 ozone season budgets by the D.C. Circuit in
We are proposing to approve the portion of a May 1, 2007 Oklahoma SIP submittal pertaining to the interfere with maintenance requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. We propose to find that the state's conclusion that Oklahoma emissions do not interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in another state is consistent with our conclusion regarding this good neighbor obligation.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Ozone.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reopening the comment period for the proposed approval to a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland pertaining to the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.32—Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from Consumer Products. The proposed rule was published in the
Written comments must be received on or before December 17, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0153 at
Gregory Becoat (215) 814-2036, or by email at
On August 8, 2018 (83 FR 39009), EPA proposed approval to a SIP revision submitted by the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) for COMAR 26.11.32—Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds from Consumer Products. The amendment is part of Maryland's strategy to achieve and maintain the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) throughout the State.
EPA is reopening the comment period due to a comment noting that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) model rules referenced in the NPR were not in the docket on
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Consumer products, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes changes to the regulations that address disclosure of financial interests by, and voting recusal of, council members appointed by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to the regional fishery management councils established under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The regulatory changes are needed to provide guidance to ensure consistency and transparency in the calculation of a Council member's financial interests; determine whether a close causal link exists between a Council decision and a benefit to a Council member's financial interest; and establish regional procedures for preparing and issuing recusal determinations. This proposed rule is intended to improve regulations implementing the statutory requirements governing disclosure of financial interests and voting recusal at section 302(j) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Written comments must be received on or before March 6, 2019.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2018-0092, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Electronic copies of NMFS Policy Directive 01-116 Fishery Management Council Financial Disclosures and NMFS Procedural Directive 01-116-01 Procedures for Review of Fishery Management Council Financial Disclosures may be obtained at
Brian Fredieu, 301-427-8505.
Section 302 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1852) includes provisions for the establishment and administration of the regional fishery management councils (Councils). Section 302(j) (16 U.S.C. 1852(j)) sets forth the statutory requirements for the disclosure of financial interests, and the circumstances under which a Council member is prohibited, or recused, from voting on a matter before a Council. These requirements apply to “affected individuals.” The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines “affected individual” at section 302(j)(1)(A) as individuals who are nominated by the Governor of a State for appointment as a voting member of a Council under section 302(b)(2), and voting members of a Council appointed under section 302(b)(2), or (b)(5) if the individual is not subject to disclosure and recusal requirements under the laws of an Indian tribal government. An affected individual is required to disclose any
Regulations implementing the provisions at section 302(j) appear at 50 CFR 600.235. NMFS also has issued policy and procedural directives (see
Pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(d)), this proposed rule would modify the regulations at 50 CFR 600.235 to provide guidance to (1) ensure consistency and transparency in the calculation of an affected individual's financial interests; (2) determine whether a close causal link exists between a Council decision and a benefit to an affected individual's financial interest; and (3) establish regional procedures for preparing and issuing recusal determinations. This proposed rule also makes several minor modifications to the regulations governing financial disclosure. The remainder of this preamble provides detailed information on the background and application of the recusal regulations, the issues that have arisen given the lack of regulations addressing certain aspects of recusal, and a detailed description of the regulatory changes being proposed to determine when a voting recusal is required and the process for issuing recusal determinations.
In 1986, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, originally called the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, was amended by Public Law 99-659 to require voting members and Executive Directors of each Council to disclose any financial interest they held in harvesting, processing, or marketing of fishery resources under the jurisdiction of their respective Council. With passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996 (Pub. L. 104-297), Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act to include provisions that prohibit an affected individual from voting on Council decisions that would have a significant and predictable effect on the individual's disclosed financial interests. Section 302(j)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(j)(7)) includes a substantive threshold that requires a voting recusal when met, and procedural provisions that apply if an affected individual is prohibited from voting on a Council decision. The substantive threshold requires a voting recusal when a Council decision would have a “significant and predictable effect” on an affected individual's disclosed financial interests. Section 302(j)(7)(A) states that a council decision is considered to have a “significant and predictable effect” on a financial interest if there is “a close causal link between the Council decision and an expected and substantially disproportionate benefit to the financial interests of the affected individual relative to the financial interests of other participants in the same gear type or sector of the fishery.” The procedural provisions (1) identify a designated official as the person making determinations on whether a Council decision would have a significant and predictable effect on an affected individual's financial interest (recusal determination), (2) allow a Council member to request the Secretary of Commerce's (Secretary's) review of a recusal determination, (3) permit an affected individual who is recused from voting to state how he or she would have voted, and (4) state that any reversal of a recusal determination may not be cause for the invalidation or reconsideration of the Council decision. Section 302(j)(7)(F) requires NMFS to promulgate regulations implementing the provisions of section 302(j)(7).
In August 1997, NMFS published a proposed rule to implement the new voting restriction and procedural provisions at section 302(j)(7) (62 FR 42474; August 7, 1997). Most relevant to this proposed rulemaking, NMFS proposed regulations that implemented the Magnuson-Stevens Act's substantive threshold for recusal and defined the phrase “expected and substantially disproportionate benefit”. This definition established a 10 percent interest threshold in either the total harvest, marketing or processing, or ownership of vessels as an indicator of whether an affected individual's interest in the fishery was significant enough to constitute an expected and substantially disproportionate benefit for purposes of recusal determinations. In the proposed rule preamble, NMFS explained that it interpreted the statutory term “benefit” to include both positive and negative impacts on the affected individual's financial interests, noting that, “Avoiding a negative is as advantageous as gaining a positive.” NMFS also explained that the choice of a particular percentage as “indicative of a `significant' interest” was a difficult one. NMFS stated that it was considering “a tiered approach, with different percentage indicators for different-sized sectors of the fishing industry,” but that it had been unable to develop a workable model and invited suggestions from the public on dealing with the issue.
The proposed regulations also defined the term “designated official” as “an attorney designated by the NOAA General Counsel” and included a process for the issuance and review of recusal determinations. The proposed regulations did not define the term “Council decision,” provide any formula for calculating harvesting, processing, and marketing activity of an affected individual's financial interests relative to the 10 percent thresholds, or provide any regulatory guidance on how to determine the existence of “close causal link.”
NMFS received a number of comments on the proposed rule and published a final rule implementing the voting recusal provisions in November 1998 (63 FR 64182; November 19, 1998). In response to one comment, NMFS added a regulatory definition for the term “Council decision.” Several comments addressed the proposed definition of “expected and substantially disproportionate benefit.” In response to one comment, NMFS explained that the agency had focused on the comparative aspect of the defined term and emphasized that, “The disqualifying effect is not that the Council action will have a significant impact on the member's financial interest; the action must have a disproportionate impact as compared with that of other participants in the fishery sector.” Additionally, some commenters said the 10 percent thresholds were too high for any fishery; other commenters said the 10 percent thresholds were too low for small fisheries. NMFS maintained the 10 percent thresholds, and responded “While NMFS has no quantitative data on which to base the selection of 10 percent as the disqualifying industry share, qualitative information available from existing disclosure forms and other
No changes were made to the statutory or regulatory provisions governing financial disclosure and recusal until January 2007, when the Magnuson-Stevens Act was reauthorized (Pub. L. 109-479). The Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act amended section 302(j) to include advocacy and lobbying as types of activities that must be disclosed by affected individuals and to require members of each Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee to disclose their financial interests. NMFS modified the regulations governing disclosure of financial interests and recusal to address these changes in 2010 (75 FR 59143, September 27, 2010). No further amendments to section 302(j) have occurred since the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act and NMFS has made no modifications to the financial disclosure and recusal regulations since 2010.
Since the effective date of the recusal regulations in February 1999, designated officials within the regional offices of the NOAA Office of General Counsel have followed and applied the recusal regulations and have prepared and issued recusal determinations when requested and as necessary for affected individuals within each of the Councils. However, because the regulations lack guidance on several key aspects of reaching a recusal determination, and provide little guidance on the procedures to be followed when preparing and issuing a recusal determination, designated officials have developed practice principles and interpretations over time to fill in these regulatory gaps and to address new factual circumstances that have arisen. The following describes the current practice, principles, and interpretations that have been used in preparing and issuing recusal determinations, which are being either modified or supplemented through this rulemaking.
Without a regulatory formula for calculating harvesting, processing or marketing activity (
A slightly different attribution principle has been applied for financial interests that wholly or partially own an affected individual's financial interests. A designated official will apply the full attribution principle when a financial interest owns fifty percent or more of an affected individual's financial interest. However, if a financial interest owns less than fifty percent of an affected individual's financial interest, then the designated official has not attributed to an affected individual any covered activity of, or vessels owned by, the financial interest.
Finally, designated officials have followed certain guidelines in applying attribution principles when the financial interest is an association or organization, or when a spouse, partner, or minor child holds the financial interest. For associations and organizations, designated officials have applied the full attribution principle when the affected individual's association or organization receives from NMFS an allocation of harvesting or processing privileges, owns vessels, or is directly engaged in a covered activity. However, if the association or organization, as an entity separate from its members, does not own any vessels and is not directly engaged in any covered activity, designated officials have not attributed to the affected individual the covered activity of, or vessel ownership by, the members of the association or organization. For spouses, partners, and minor children, application of the attribution principle depends on whether there is ownership of, or employment with, the financial interest. Designated officials apply the full attribution principle and attribute to an affected individual all covered activity of, and vessels owned by, a financial interest that is wholly or partially owned by a spouse, partner, or minor child. Similarly, designated officials have applied the full attribution principle and attributed to an affected individual all covered activity of, and vessels owned by, a financial interest that employs a spouse, partner or minor child when the spouse's, partner's, or minor child's compensation is influenced by, or fluctuates with, the financial performance of the company. Conversely, designated officials have not attributed to an affected individual any covered activity of, or vessels owned by, a financial interest that employs a spouse, partner or minor child when the spouse's, partner's, or minor child's compensation is not influenced by, or fluctuates with, the financial performance of the company.
Since implementation of the recusal regulations in 1999, designated officials have understood that the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the regulations require a voting recusal when there is a close causal link between the Council decision and an expected and substantially disproportionate benefit to an affected individual's financial interest in the fishery or sector of the fishery affected by the Council decision relative to other participants and using the most recent fishing year for which information is available. However, without any regulatory guidance concerning the close causal link requirement, the issue has sometimes been subsumed in the determination of whether there is an expected and substantially disproportionate benefit.
Regulations at 50 CFR 600.235(f) set forth two paths for initiating a recusal determination. First, an affected individual may request a recusal determination by notifying the designated official either within a reasonable time before the Council meeting at which the Council decision will be made or during a Council meeting before a Council vote on the decision. Second, a designated official may initiate a recusal determination. The designated official may initiate based on his or her knowledge of the fishery and the financial interests disclosed by an affected individual or
While the regulations at § 600.235(f) provide some structure for the initiation, development, and issuance of a recusal determination, they are silent on other important procedural aspects of preparing and issuing a recusal determination. For example, the regulations do not address: (1) The process by which the designated official will make the affected individual, the Council, and the public aware of recusal determinations, (2) how and when designated officials are identified, or (3) the timing of issuing a recusal determination relative to the start of a Council meeting and the request for review process. Without additional regulatory guidance concerning the procedure for preparing and issuing recusal determinations, regional practices have developed to address these gaps.
Several recent determinations resulting in voting recusals have raised concerns among the Regional Fishery Management Councils. In April 2015, the NOAA General Counsel received a request for review (
After reviewing the appeal, the NOAA General Counsel upheld the use of the full attribution approach, concluding that (1) the term “interest” as used in the recusal regulations is broad and not limited solely to direct financial benefit from harvest; (2) that the full attribution approach is more consistent with the purpose of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the regulations; and (3) while past practice is not necessarily binding, consistency and predictability are important for all stakeholders in the fisheries management process.
After receiving another recusal determination in May 2015 that used the full attribution approach, the North Pacific Council submitted a letter to NMFS in August 2015, asking NMFS to consider changes to the way in which covered activity is calculated. Specifically, the North Pacific Council asked NMFS to consider using a proportional share approach similar to the approach described in the appeal. Under the approach, the designated official would attribute to the affected individual the percentage of the company's covered activity that is commensurate with the affected individual's ownership percentage. The North Pacific Council argued that use of the full attribution approach is an “unfair and illogical interpretation of the recusal regulations, and results in unintended recusals of Council members.” The North Pacific Council also stated that it had general concerns with the lack of transparency and predictability of the recusal process and asked that NMFS provide more clarity and predictability to the process of issuing recusal determinations.
While NMFS was considering the North Pacific Council's requests, another determination requiring a voting recusal of an affected individual of the North Pacific Council was issued in March 2017. The recusal determination applied the full attribution approach and determined that a voting recusal was required because the action before the North Pacific Council was a Council decision and the affected individual's financial interests harvested more than ten percent of the total harvest in the affected fishery during the previous fishing year. However, the Council decision was a fishery management plan amendment that required no implementing regulations. The North Pacific Council argued that because the action had no real possibility of affecting the affected individual's financial interests, there was no close causal link between the Council decision and the expected and substantially disproportionate benefit to the affected individual's financial interests and no voting recusal should have been required. Around this same time, the Western Pacific Council raised similar concerns with regard to “close causal link” between a benefit and a Council decision, and what constituted an “expected and substantially disproportionate benefit” regarding an affected individual's financial interest, especially when the affected individual is an employee of a fishing company versus an owner of a fishing company.
NMFS discussed these concerns with the Council Coordination Committee and decided to initiate this rulemaking to address the concerns. NMFS tasked a recusal working group, comprised of experts in both NMFS and the NOAA Office of General Counsel, to consider whether the agency should take any action regarding how the recusal provisions should be applied in such circumstances in the future. The group considered the attribution principles for recusal determinations and sought solutions to clarify the application of the close causal link requirement in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The group also discussed ways in which to improve the transparency of regional procedures employed in preparing and issuing recusal determinations.
NMFS proposes to make the following changes to the financial disclosure and recusal regulations at § 600.235.
NMFS proposes regulations that explain the steps to be followed in determining whether an affected individual is required to be recused from voting. Regulations at 50 CFR 600.235(c)(3) would be modified to clarify the multi-part test that is used in making this determination. First, the designated official would need to determine if the action being taken by a Council is a “Council decision” and
NMFS proposes to make minor adjustments to the current regulatory definition of “expected and substantially disproportionate benefit.” One of these changes would be to remove the ten percent recusal thresholds from the definition of “expected and substantially disproportionate benefit” and use them to define the term “significant financial interest.”
NMFS also proposes to add § 600.235(c)(5) to provide guidance on determining whether an expected and substantially disproportionate benefit exists. This proposed regulation clarifies that an expected and substantially disproportionate benefit will be determined to exist if an affected individual has a significant financial interest in the fishery that is likely to be positively or negatively impacted by the Council decision. An affected individual's significant financial interest in a fishery indicates that the affected individual will experience an expected and substantially disproportionate impact, either positive or negative, relative to the financial interests of other participants in the fishery. The magnitude of the positive or negative impact is not determinative of whether there is an expected and substantially disproportionate benefit. NMFS also proposes regulatory guidance on how to calculate an affected individual's financial interests in order to determine whether the affected individual has a significant financial interest, which is described later in the preamble.
NMFS proposes to create a definition of close causal link to better guide the application of the requirement for causation between a Council decision and an expected and substantially disproportionate benefit to the financial interests of an affected individual. The proposed definition would state that a close causal link means that “a Council decision would reasonably be expected to directly impact or affect the financial interests of an affected individual.”
NMFS also proposes regulatory guidance on determining whether a close causal link exists. Due to the nature of Council decisions, NMFS concluded that it generally is likely that a close causal link between a benefit and a Council decision exists for all Council decisions, especially those with implementing regulations, as regulations typically impact the public directly in some way. However, NMFS also recognizes that there may be instances where no impact would occur or where the chain of causation is attenuated. Therefore, NMFS proposes exceptions under which a designated official may determine that a close causal link does not exist. One proposed exception would be for a Council decision affecting a fishery or sector of a fishery in which an affected individual has a financial interest but the chain of causation between the Council decision and the affected individual's financial interest is attenuated or is contingent on the occurrence of events that are speculative or that are independent and unrelated to the Council decision. The other proposed exception would be for a Council decision affecting a fishery or sector of a fishery in which an affected individual has a financial interest but there is no real, as opposed to speculative, possibility that the Council decision will affect the affected individual's financial interest. This proposed language provides guidance on how to determine an element of causation in those instances where a Council decision is not reasonably expected to directly impact or affect the financial interest of an affected individual.
In response to the requests for increased transparency and predictability, NMFS proposes to amend the regulations to provide guidance on the attribution principles to be applied when calculating whether an affected individual has a significant financial interest in a fishery. The proposed attribution principles address (1) direct ownership and employment, (2) indirect ownership, (3) parent ownership, (4) financial interests in associations and organizations, and (5) financial interests of a spouse, partner, or minor child. The proposed attribution principles for parent ownership, associations and organizations, and financial interests of a spouse, partner, or minor child represent the approach NMFS has been following and would continue to follow if this proposed rule is finalized. However, NMFS proposes to adopt a partial attribution approach when calculating direct and indirect ownership.
NMFS recognizes a distinction between two different types of partial interest: (1) Direct ownership, and (2) indirect ownership (
An affected individual would be considered to have a direct ownership interest when the affected individual wholly or partially owns, or is employed by, a business, vessel, or other entity (
In the case of direct ownership, NMFS determined that affected individuals owning 50 percent or more of a company should continue to be attributed with 100 percent of the covered activity and vessel ownership of that company because an individual has a direct interest in, and more control over, a company that he or she owns, even if the interest represents less than a 100 percent interest in the company. NMFS believes that when a Council member owns a controlling interest in a company, the member can also control a company's response to any particular council decision and the potential for a conflict of interest is heightened. Additionally, NMFS determined that an employee of a company should continue to be attributed with 100 percent of the covered activity and vessel ownership of that company because an employee cannot be “partially” employed and thus the employee's interest is always fully attributed to a company through the nature of their employment. However, NMFS determined that a partial attribution approach for less than 50 percent direct ownership would more closely align the owner's actual ownership interest in a company and better reflect the ability to control the company's activities. Therefore NMFS proposes to only attribute the proportional level of interest to the owner.
In the case of indirect (or subsidiary) ownership, an affected individual would be considered to have an indirect ownership interest when the affected individual's company or employer wholly or partially owns a company that must be reported on the individual's financial interest form. For subsidiary ownership, NMFS proposes to apply a partial attribution approach and attribute to the affected individual the harvesting, processing, and marketing activity of, and vessels owned by, a company that is owned by an affected individual's company or employer commensurate with the member's percentage ownership in the directly owned company, and the directly owned company's ownership in the indirectly owned company. For example, if Jones owns 25 percent of Acme, and Acme owns 50 percent of Zenith, then Jones should be attributed 12.5 percent of Zenith's activity in an affected fishery. NMFS determined that this partial attribution approach better captures the attenuated nature of indirect ownership and reflects that an affected individual has less control or a more partial interest in the activities of a company indirectly owned by the affected individual's directly owned company or employer. In any of these cases, the burden would be on the Council member to provide reliable information concerning partial ownership interests. In the absence of such information, a 100 percent interest would be assumed.
NMFS recognizes that the proposed revisions to the direct and indirect attribution principles may not address every situation in which an affected individual's interest may seem attenuated. However, under the proposed multi-part test for determining whether recusal is required, a designated official must specifically determine whether there is a close causal link between a council decision and an expected and substantially disproportionate benefit to an affected individual's financial interests. The proposed guidance on close causal link will further address situations where an affected individual's interest is attenuated from a Council decision.
In order to increase transparency and to add clarity to the process for development and issuance of recusal determinations, NMFS intends to require that each NMFS Regional Office, in conjunction with NOAA Office of General Counsel, will publish and make available to the public a Regional Recusal Determination Procedure Handbook, which explains the process and procedure typically followed by the region in preparing and issuing recusal determinations. The handbook would include: A statement that the Regional Recusal Determination Procedure Handbook is intended as guidance to describe the recusal determination process and procedure typically followed within the region; identification of the Council(s) to which the Regional Recusal Determination Procedure Handbook applies; a description of the process for identifying the fishery or sector of the fishery affected by the action before the Council; a description of the process for preparing and issuing a recusal determination relative to the timing of a Council decision; a description of the process by which the Council, Council members, and the public will be made aware of recusal determinations; and a description of the process for identifying the designated official(s) who will prepare recusal determinations and attend Council meetings.
In addition to the proposed changes described above, NMFS proposes to make several minor changes to section 600.235 to provide additional clarity to the financial disclosure regulations and guidance concerning the length of time Regional Administrators and NMFS Regional Offices must retain financial disclosure forms submitted by Council and Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) members. First, NMFS proposes to amend the heading for section 600.235 to include reference to recusal. The current heading for section 600.235 only refers to financial disclosure but this section has included the recusal regulations since 1998. The addition of “recusal” to the heading would provide clarity as to the subject of the regulations at section 600.235.
Second, the proposed rule would modify regulations at 600.235(h) to change “financial disclosure report” to “Financial Interest Form” to provide the accurate title of the financial disclosure form when it is referenced in the regulations. The proposed modifications would provide clarity and consistency in the financial disclosure regulations by including an accurate reference to the financial disclosure form.
Third, the proposed rule would add a new paragraph 600.235(b)(5), which would require a Regional Administrator to retain a Council member's financial disclosure forms for 20 years from the date the form is signed by the Council member, or in accordance with the records retention schedule published by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and as implemented by NOAA, if the schedule requires retention of such forms for longer than 20 years. Currently, the financial disclosure regulations do not provide Regional Administrators or NMFS Regional Offices with any guidance on the length of time a Council member's financial disclosure forms should be retained by NMFS. NMFS has determined that financial disclosure forms submitted by Council members are important documents worthy of retention for 20 years after their submission, or for as long as required by NARA. The proposed change would ensure that a Council member's financial disclosure forms are available for public inspection and agency examination for a sufficient period of time during and following the Council member's tenure on a regional fishery management council.
Finally, the proposed rule would make minor clarifying changes through proposed § 600.235(b)(8) by changing the phrase “shall maintain on file” to “must retain.”
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is
This proposed action is significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule regulates only those Council members who have voting privileges and are appointed to their position by the Secretary of Commerce.
This proposed rule would modify regulations at 50 CFR 600.235 to provide guidance to: (1) Ensure consistency and transparency in the calculation of an affected individual's financial interests; (2) determine whether a close causal link exists between a Council decision and a benefit to an affected individual's financial interest; and (3) establish regional procedures for preparing and issuing recusal determinations. NMFS invites public comment on whether the changes proposed are sufficient and effective in distinguishing the calculation of direct ownership, indirect ownership and employment interests; whether the proposed language appropriately defines when a close causal link exists between a Council decision and a benefit; and whether the establishment of regional procedures provides consistency and transparency in the preparation and issuance of recusal determinations. Specifically, NMFS invites public comment on whether partial attribution should extend to cases where the affected individual is an employee, a member of an association or organization, a spouse, partner, or minor child of a council member, or in cases of parent ownership; on whether there are additional circumstances that merit an exception from the standard that a close causal link exists for all Council decision that require implementing regulations and that affect a fishery or sector of a fishery in which an affect individual has a financial interest; whether partial attribution appropriately reflects the attenuated nature of indirect ownership. NMFS also invites comment on whether a 50 percent ownership threshold captures the nature of direct ownership, including whether an interest of less than 50 percent might in some cases be controlling, but also notes that any subjective control test would likely require council members to submit additional financial information and would require NMFS to develop a process and expertise to analyze control. In accordance with 50 CFR 600.235, Council members may be required to recuse themselves from voting on a Council decision that would have a significant and predictable effect on a disclosed financial interest. This proposed rule would have no effect on any small entities, as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics.
For reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 600 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801
The additions and revisions to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) A greater than 10-percent interest in the total harvest of the fishery or sector of the fishery affected by the Council decision;
(2) A greater than 10-percent interest in the marketing or processing of the total harvest of the fishery or sector of the fishery affected by the Council decision; or
(3) Full or partial ownership of more than 10 percent of the vessels using the same gear type within the fishery or sector of the fishery affected by the Council decision.
(b) * * *
(5) The Regional Administrator must retain the Financial Interest Form for a Council member for 20 years from the date the form is signed by the Council member or in accordance with the current NOAA records schedule.
(8) The Regional Administrator must retain the Financial Interest Forms of all SSC members for at least five years after the expiration of that individual's term on the SSC. Such forms are not subject to sections 302(j)(5)(B) and (C) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
(c) * * *
(3) In making a determination under paragraph (f) of this section as to whether a Council decision will have a significant and predictable effect on an affected individual's financial interests, the designated official will:
(i) Initially determine whether the action before the Council is a Council decision, and whether the affected individual has any financial interest in the fishery or sector of the fishery affected by the action.
(ii) If the designated official determines that the action is not a Council decision or that the affected individual does not have any financial interest in the fishery or sector of the fishery affected by the action, the designated official's inquiry ends and the designated official will determine that a voting recusal is not required under 50 CFR 600.235.
(iii) However, if the designated official determines that the action is a Council decision and that the affected individual has a financial interest in the fishery or sector of the fishery affected by the Council decision, a voting recusal is required under 50 CFR 600.235 if there is:
(A) An expected and substantially disproportionate benefit to the affected individual's financial interest (see paragraph (c)(5) of this section), and
(B) A close causal link (see paragraph (c)(4) of this section) between the Council decision and the expected and substantially disproportionate benefit to the affected individual's financial interest.
(4)
(A) The chain of causation between the Council decision and the affected individual's financial interest is attenuated or is contingent on the occurrence of events that are speculative or that are independent of and unrelated to the Council decision; or
(B) There is no real, as opposed to speculative, possibility that the Council decision will affect the affected individual's financial interest.
(ii) For Council decisions that do not require implementing regulations, a close causal link exists if there is a real, as opposed to speculative, possibility that the Council decision will affect the affected individual's financial interest.
(5)
(6)
(B) The designated official may contact an affected individual to better understand the reported financial interest or any information provided in writing.
(C) The designated official will presume that the information reported on the Financial Interest Form is true and correct and the designated official is not responsible for determining the veracity of the reported information when preparing a determination under paragraph (f) of this section.
(D) If an affected individual does not provide information concerning the specific percentage of ownership of a financial interest reported on his or her Financial Interest Form, the designated official will attribute all harvesting, processing, or marketing activity of, and vessels owned by, the financial interest to the affected individual.
(ii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(
(f)
(i) Within a reasonable time before the Council meeting at which the Council decision will be made; or
(ii) During a Council meeting before a Council vote on the decision.
(6)
(ii) A Regional Recusal Determination Procedure Handbook must include:
(A) A statement that the Regional Recusal Determination Procedure Handbook is intended as guidance to describe the recusal determination process and procedure typically followed within the region.
(B) Identification of the Council(s) to which the Regional Recusal Determination Procedure Handbook applies. If the Regional Recusal Determination Procedure Handbook applies to multiple Councils, any procedure that applies to a subset of those Councils should clearly identify the Council(s) to which the procedure applies.
(C) A description of the process for identifying the fishery or sector of the fishery affected by the action before the Council.
(D) A description of the process for preparing and issuing a recusal determination relative to the timing of a Council decision.
(E) A description of the process by which the Council, Council members, and the public will be made aware of recusal determinations.
(F) A description of the process for identifying the designated official(s) who will prepare recusal determinations and attend Council meetings.
(iii) A Regional Recusal Determination Procedure Handbook may include additional material related to the region's process and procedure for recusal determinations not specifically identified in paragraph (f)(6)(ii) of this section. A Regional Recusal Determination Procedure Handbook may be revised at any time upon agreement by the NMFS Regional Office and NOAA Office of General Counsel.
(g) * * *
(2) A Council member may request a review of any aspect of the recusal determination, including but not limited to, whether the action is a Council decision, the description of the fishery or sector of the fishery affected by the Council action, the calculation of an affected individual's financial interests or the finding of a significant financial interest, and the existence of a close causal link. A request for review must include a full statement in support of the review, including a concise statement as to why the Council member believes that the recusal determination is in error and why the designated official's determination should be reversed.
(h) The provisions of 18 U.S.C. 208 regarding conflicts of interest do not apply to an affected individual who is a voting member of a Council appointed by the Secretary, as described under section 302(j)(1)(A)(ii) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and who is in compliance with the requirements of this section for filing a Financial Interest Form. The provisions of 18 U.S.C. 208 do not apply to a member of an SSC, unless that individual is an officer or employee of the United States or is otherwise covered by the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 208.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to initiate the plan development phase of the land management plan revision for the Salmon-Challis National Forest.
The Salmon-Challis National Forest is initiating the land management planning process pursuant to the 2012 Planning Rule. This process will result in a revised land management plan that describes the strategic direction for management of forest resources for the next 10 to 15 years on the Salmon-Challis National Forest. The Salmon-Challis is inviting the public to help us identify the need to change the existing Challis and Salmon Land Management Plans, as well as, the appropriate plan components that will become a proposed action for the land management plan revision.
The assessment for the Salmon-Challis National Forest was completed July 19, 2018, and posted on the web at
From November 2018 through February 2019, the public is invited to engage in a collaborative process to identify the primary concepts to be considered for the proposed action and associated plan components. The Salmon-Challis will then initiate procedures pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and prepare a revised land management plan.
Send written comments or questions concerning this notice to Salmon-Challis National Forest, Attn.: Plan Revision, 1206 South Challis Street, Salmon, Idaho, 83467. Comments may also be sent via email to
Josh Milligan, Planning Team Leader, 208-756-5560. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. More information on the planning process can also be found on the Salmon-Challis National Forest website at
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 requires that every National Forest System (NFS) unit develop a land management plan. The 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) provides broad programmatic direction to national forests and national grasslands for developing and implementing their land management plans. These plans describe the strategic direction for management of forest resources for ten to fifteen years, and are adaptive and amendable as conditions change over time.
Under the 2012 Planning Rule, the assessment of ecological, social, and economic trends and conditions is the first stage of the planning process. The assessment phase began in January 2018 and interested parties were invited to contribute in the development of the assessment (36 CFR 219.6). The Salmon-Challis hosted several public meetings and on-line webinars throughout the assessment phase. The assessment was completed in July 2018. The trends and conditions identified in the assessment will help to develop the needs for change and the development of plan components.
The second stage is a development and decision process guided, in part, by NEPA and includes the preparation of a draft environmental impact statement and revised land management plan for public review and comment, and the preparation of the final environmental impact statement and revised land management plan. The third stage of the process is monitoring and feedback, which is ongoing over the life of the revised plan.
With this notice, the agency invites other governments, non-governmental parties, and the public to contribute to the development of the proposed action. The intent of public engagement during development of the proposed action is to identify the appropriate plan components that the Forest Service should consider in developing its land management plan. We encourage contributors to share material about desired conditions, standards and guidelines, land suitability determinations, management area designations, and plan monitoring.
Collaboration in the development of the proposed action supports the development of relationships of key stakeholders throughout the plan development process and is an essential step to understanding current conditions, available data, and feedback needed to support a strategic, efficient planning process.
As public meetings, other opportunities for public engagement, and public review and comment opportunities are identified to assist with the development of the land management plan revision, public announcements will be made, notifications will be posted on the Salmon-Challis website at
If anyone is interested in being on the Salmon-Challis land management plan revision mailing list to receive these notifications, please contact Planning Team Leader Josh Milligan at the mailing address identified above, by sending an email to
The responsible official for the revision of the Salmon-Challis National Forest Land Management Plan is Chuck Mark, Forest Supervisor, Salmon-Challis National Forest, 1206 South Challis Street, Salmon, Idaho, 83467.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Heppner and North Fork John Day Ranger Districts propose the Ellis Integrated Vegetation Project (Ellis Project) to reduce overstocking, improve ecosystem health, and enhance resilient landscapes by creating and maintaining heterogeneous vegetative conditions at multiple scales. As a result, this action will reduce the risk of uncharacteristic disturbances; enhance vegetative communities; provide well-distributed, high quality wildlife habitat for associated species; aid in protecting values at risk; promote the health and safety of the public and firefighters; and contribute to social, cultural, and economic needs. The project area is approximately 15 miles southeast of Heppner and 7 miles west of Ukiah, Oregon, in Morrow, Umatilla, and Grant Counties. Based on internal and external issues raised early in proposal development; and the scope, scale, and potentially significant beneficial impacts to distribution of wildlife, forest health, and fuels reduction, the Umatilla National Forest plans to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS).
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by January 15, 2019. The draft EIS is expected November 2019 and the final EIS is expected July 2020.
Send written comments to Heppner District Ranger, Brandon Houck; c/o Leslie Taylor, PO Box 7, Heppner, Oregon, 97836, or they can be hand delivered to the Heppner Ranger District (117 So. Main St., Heppner, OR 97836). Comments may also be submitted electronically via
Elizabeth Berkley, 541-278-3814,
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
The Ellis Project is located within the Upper Butter Creek, Upper Willow Creek, Rhea Creek, Lower Camas Creek, and the Potamus Creek-North Fork John Day River 5th field watersheds. Private land accounts for approximately 4,626 acres within the project boundary, leaving about up to 110,000 acres that may be considered for treatment on National Forest System lands.
The Ellis Project is an interdisciplinary project developed to meet a wide variety of program needs. The key purposes are to reduce the risk of undesirable wildfire, improve ingress and egress for firefighters, increase forest health and vigor for timber and non-timber values, and improve wildlife habitat. This project is needed to protect values at risk, create healthy, fire-resistant landscapes and improve wildlife habitat and forage variability. Additional program purposes include improving the quality of rangelands, enhancing unique vegetation communities, improving ethnographically important foods, and improving and maintaining recreational opportunities.
The Ellis Project is expected to include the following types of treatments: commercial thinning; small diameter thinning; mechanical fuels treatments; pile, jackpot, and broadcast burning; landscape burning; pruning and planting. Target basal area for thinning will be dependent on species composition, stand age, size classes and desired future conditions. Varying desired stand density will create or maintain a clumpy, patchy, uneven mosaic of trees across the landscape. Regeneration harvest will occur in cold and cool moist forest areas affected by insect and disease. Areas of additional treatment will be focused on the ember reduction zone, areas of scenic recreational value, and areas of conifer encroachment on aspen stands, wet meadows and shrub-steppe. Additional wildlife habitat improvements will include forage plantings and road closures to increase security. Rangeland improvements may include water developments and fencing. Project outputs include a variety of forest products including fuelwood, posts and poles, saw logs, and other wood fiber products.
Brandon Houck (Heppner) and Paula Guenther (North Fork John Day) District Rangers.
Given the purpose and need, the responsible officials will review the proposed action and comments on the scope of the project to develop any alternatives to address issues identified by the public. Alternatives and the environmental consequences will be drafted and analyzed in the draft decision. The responsible officials will compare the proposed action and alternatives and consider environmental consequences of the Ellis Project in order to decide how well the selected alternative meets the purpose and need described in the EIS; how well the selected alternative moves the project area toward the desired conditions; and if the selected alternative mitigates potential adverse effects.
Issues identified so far include potential impact of treatments in cold and cool moist forest and wildlife movement/displacement. Vegetation treatments in cold and cool moist forest remains a contentious topic among stakeholders as these areas are considered more sensitive to disturbance, but the need still exists to reduce stand density for forest vigor and to reestablish historical fire regimes. Wildlife movement and distribution, particularly for elk, is also a growing concern. Early stakeholder engagement has identified a need to improve security and forage on National Forest System lands to better retain elk, which are pushed off-forest onto private lands, creating conflict in agricultural areas. High road use and road density exacerbate this issue.
The Heppner and North Fork John Day Ranger Districts have scheduled three public workshops to help facilitate conversations about the project area and solicit input on the proposal. These workshops are scheduled for November 8, November 15, and December 13, 2018, from 1800 to 2000 hours (6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.). Two will be held at the Heppner Ranger District (117 So. Main St., Heppner, OR 97836) and the other at the North Fork John Day Ranger District office (401 W. Main, Ukiah, OR 97880). Exact locations will be announced closer to scheduled dates in consideration of weather and road conditions.
Comments should be as specific as possible and focus on desired conditions or means to address concerns about the proposed action. It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not allow the Agency to provide the respondent with updates or subsequent environmental documents.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of Intent to Re-establish the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board Charter.
The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), intends to re-establish the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (Board) charter. In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Board is being re-established to continue obtaining advice and recommendations on a broad range of forest issues such as forest plan revisions or amendments, forest health including fire management and mountain pine beetle infestations, travel management, forest monitoring and evaluation, recreation fees, and site-specific projects having forest wide implications.
Scott Jacobson, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Black Hills National Forest, by telephone at 605-673-9216, by fax at 605-673-9208 or by email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The Board is a non-scientific program advisory Board established by the Secretary of Agriculture in 2003 to provide advice and counsel to the U.S. Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, in the wake of increasingly severe and intense wild fires and mountain pine beetle epidemics.
The Board serves to meet the needs of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2005 (FLREA) as a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee (RRAC) for the Black Hills of South Dakota and provides timely advice and recommendations to the regional forester through the forest supervisor regarding programmatic forest issues and project-level issues that have forest-wide implications for the Black Hills National Forest.
The Board meets approximately ten times a year, with one month being a field trip, held in August and focusing on both current issues and the educational value of seeing management strategies and outcomes on the ground. This Board has been established as a truly credible entity and a trusted voice on forest management issues and is doing often astonishing work in helping to develop informed consent for forest management.
For years, the demands made on the Black Hills National Forest have resulted in conflicts among interest groups resulting in both forest-wide and site-specific programs being delayed due to appeals and litigation. The Board provides a forum to resolve these issues to allow for the Black Hills National Forest to move forward in its management activities. The Board is believed to be one of the few groups with broad enough scope to address all of the issues and include all of the jurisdictional boundaries.
The Board's most significant accomplishments include:
1. A 2004 report on the Black Hills Fuels Reduction Plan, a priority following the major fires including the 86,000 acre Jasper Fire in 2000;
2. A 2004 initial Off-Highway Vehicle Travel Management Subcommittee report;
3. A report on their findings regarding the thesis, direction, and assumptions of Phase II of our Forest Plan produced in 2005;
4. The Invasive Species Subcommittee Report in 2005 covering recommendations to better stop invasive species from infiltrating the Forest;
5. A final Travel Management Subcommittee Report in 2006 in which the Board made 11 recommendations regarding characteristics of a designated motor vehicle trail system, the basis for our initial work to prepare our Motor Vehicle Use Map in 2010-2011;
6. The Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project in 2012 covering landscape scale treatments on portions of 248,000 acres of ponderosa pine stands at high risk for infestation.
7. The Board's annual work to attract funding through grants based on the Collaborative Landscape Forest Restoration Program (CFLRP), a program of the Secretary of Agriculture CFLR Program to encourage the collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscapes;
8. A letter to the Secretary and the Chief of the Forest Service to work, restore and maintain open space for wildlife habitat and recreation needs like snowmobile trails; and
9. The annual reports to the Secretary detailing the Board's activities, issues, and accomplishments.
The Board is deemed to be among the most effective public involvement strategies in the Forest Service and continues to lead by example for Federal, State, and local government agencies working to coordinate and cooperate in the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Secretary of Agriculture intends to reestablish the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board charter. The Board provides advice and recommendations on a broad range of forest planning issues and, in accordance with FLREA, more specifically will provide advice and recommendations on Black Hills National Forest recreation fee issues (serving as the RRAC for the Black Hills National Forest). The Board membership consists of individuals representing commodity interests, amenity interests, and State and local government.
The Board has been determined to be in the public interest in connection with the duties and responsibilities of the Black Hills National Forest. National forest management requires improved coordination among the interests and governmental entities responsible for land management decisions and the public that the agency serves.
The Board consists of 16 members that are representatives of the following interests (this membership is similar to the membership outlined by the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self
1. Economic development;
2. Developed outdoor recreation, off-highway vehicle users, or commercial recreation;
3. Energy and mineral development;
4. Timber products industry;
5. Permittee (grazing or other land use within the Black Hills area);
6. Nationally recognized environmental organizations;
7. Regionally or locally recognized environmental organizations;
8. Dispersed recreation;
9. Archeology or history;
10. Nationally or regionally recognized sportsmen's groups, such as anglers or hunters;
11. South Dakota State-elected offices;
12. Wyoming State-elected offices;
13. South Dakota or Wyoming county-or local-elected officials;
14. Tribal government elected or- appointed officials;
15. South Dakota State natural resource agency official; and
16. Wyoming State natural resource agency official.
The members of the Board will elect and determine the responsibilities of the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson. In the absence of the Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson will act in the Chairperson's stead. The Forest Supervisor of the Black Hills National Forest serves as the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) under sections 10(e) and (f) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The Committee will meet approximately nine times, and will attend at least one summer field tour as designated by the DFO. Members will serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for travel expenses while performing duties on behalf of the Board, subject to approval by the DFO.
Equal opportunity practices are followed in all appointments to the Board in accordance with USDA policies. To ensure that the recommendations of the Board have been taken into account the needs of diverse groups, served by the Black Hills National Forest, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women and persons with disabilities.
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 that the Oklahoma Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Monday, December 10, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. Central time. The Committee will discuss the implementation stage of their study of the state's 2012 “Civil Rights Initiative,” which prohibited preferential treatment or discrimination based on race, color, sex, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, education, and contracting.
Monday, December 10, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. Central.
Alejandro Ventura, DFO, at
Members of the public may listen to this discussion through the above call in number. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. 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 submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 S Dearborn, Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
The Port of Milwaukee, grantee of FTZ 41, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Jeneil Biotech, Inc. (Jeneil), located in Saukville, Wisconsin. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on September 27, 2018.
The Jeneil facility is located within Site 16 of FTZ 41. The facility is used for the biotransformation of a plant-derived raw material into a natural fragrance intermediate molecule. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material/component and specific finished product described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Jeneil from customs duty payments on the foreign-status component used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status material/component noted below, Jeneil would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to sclareolide (off-white powder) (duty rate 3.7%). Jeneil would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status
The component/material sourced from abroad is sclareol (off-white powder) (duty rate 5.5%).
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 26, 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 Elizabeth Whiteman at
The Port of Corpus Christi Authority, grantee of FTZ 122, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Gulf Coast Growth Ventures LLC (GCGV), at sites located in San Patricio County, Texas. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on November 1, 2018.
The applicant has submitted a separate application for FTZ designation at the GCGV sites under FTZ 122 (B-59-2018). The facilities (currently proposed for construction) will be used for the production of ethylene, polyethylene and monoethylene glycol and related co-products. 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 GCGV 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, GCGV would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to: Ethylene; polyethylene; monoethylene glycol; dilute propylene; crude C4; pyrolysis gasoline; fuel oil; spent caustic; heavy glycol; and, glycol bleed (duty rates range from duty-free to 5.25 cents/barrel to 6.5%). GCGV 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 components and materials sourced from abroad include: Butene; hexene; furnace selective catalyst reduction catalyst; front end acetylene converter catalyst; and, molecular sieve desiccant (duty free). The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to special duties under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable 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 26, 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
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of the following: Personnel Committee (Closed Session); Standard Operating, Policy, and Procedure (SOPPs) Committee; Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management Committee; Dolphin Wahoo Committee; Snapper Grouper Committee; Executive Finance Committee; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) Committee (Partially Closed Session) and the Citizen Science Committee. The Council meeting week will include the swearing in of a new member, a formal public comment period, and a meeting of the full Council. A Federal For-Hire Electronic Reporting Training Session will also be held as part of the Council meeting week.
The Council meetings will be held from 1:30 p.m. on Monday, December 3, 2018 until 12 p.m. on Friday, December 7, 2018.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 302-8440 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The items of discussion in the individual meeting agendas are as follows:
Newly appointed Council member David Whitaker (South Carolina) will be sworn to duty by the NOAA Fisheries Regional Administrator.
The Committee will meet in Closed Session to provide a performance review for the Executive Director, review and discuss Council staff medical benefits, and review other recommendations from the Personnel Committee.
The Committee will review and approve proposed changes to the Council Handbook and develop recommendations as appropriate.
1. The Committee will discuss ways to address species moving northwards along the Atlantic Coast.
2. The Committee will receive an update on the Fishery Ecosystem Plan II Dashboard and tools development, ecosystem modelling and regional partner coordination, and take action as needed.
3. The Committee will also receive a report from the Habitat Advisory Panel meeting; presentations on renewable energy development including the Kitty Hawk Wind Energy Project; and take action as needed.
1. The Committee will receive updates from NOAA Fisheries on the status of recreational and commercial catches versus annual catch limits (ACLs).
2. The Committee will receive a presentation on issues affecting bullet and frigate mackerels as prey for dolphin and wahoo, and provide guidance to staff.
3. The Committee will review draft actions for dolphin to include in Amendment 10 to the Dolphin Wahoo Fishery Management Plan including revising the Optimum Yield, modifying annual catch targets (ACTs), adaptive management of sector ACLs, and addressing authorized gear. The Committee will take action as needed.
1. The Committee will receive updates from NOAA Fisheries on commercial and recreational catches versus quotas for species under ACLs and the status of amendments under formal Secretarial review.
2. The Committee will receive a report from the Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel and from the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee and take action as appropriate.
3. The Committee will review Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 30 addressing the rebuilding plan for red grouper, discuss timing for the amendment, modify the draft amendment as necessary, and provide guidance to staff.
4. The Committee will receive an overview of Vision Blueprint Regulatory Amendment 26 addressing recreational management actions and alternatives as identified in the 2016-2020 Vision Blueprint for the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan. The Committee will modify the document as necessary and consider recommending for formal Secretarial review.
5. The Committee will review Regulatory Amendment 42 addressing sea turtle release gear requirements and snapper grouper framework modifications, select preferred management alternatives and consider approving the amendment for public hearings.
6. The Committee will receive an overview for a draft Allocation Review Trigger Plan to establish criteria for reviewing sector allocations and provide guidance to staff on timing and approach.
7. The Committee will receive an overview and review public comments for Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 32 addressing yellowtail snapper accountability measures, review public comments, modify actions as needed, and consider approval for formal review.
8. The Committee will also review options for a Recreational Accountability Amendment, review the Vision Blueprint Biennial Evaluation, receive an update on the Catch Per Unit Effort for red snapper, and receive a review of the Characterization of the Snapper Grouper Commercial Fishery, and provide direction to staff as appropriate.
1. The Committee will review the Council's ranking of amendments for its work schedule, receive an update on Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization efforts and the CCC Working Paper which includes positions on reauthorization, discuss, and provide guidance to staff.
2. The Committee will receive an update on the Calendar-Year 2018 expenditures, review a preliminary list of items for the 2019 budget, and take action as appropriate.
3. The committee will review the Council's Follow Up Document, Priorities and Tiering List, discuss, and provide guidance to staff.
Public comment will be accepted on items on the Council meeting agenda scheduled to be approved for Secretarial Review: Snapper Grouper Vision Blueprint Regulatory Amendment 26 (recreational measures) and Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 32 (yellowtail snapper accountability measures). Public comment will also be accepted on all agenda items. The Council Chair, based on the number of individuals wishing to comment, will determine the amount of time provided to each commenter.
1. The Committee will make recommendations for appointments to the tilefish stock assessment and to the Scamp Stock Identification Workshop (Closed Session).
2. In open session, the Committee will review the SSC Report and provide
3. The Committee will also receive an assessment activities update and an overview of the next SEDAR Steering Committee meeting, and provide guidance to staff as needed.
1. The Committee will review the Draft Citizen Science Program SOPPs, modify as needed and provide recommendations for approval.
2. The Committee will also receive an update on the Citizen Science Program and projects and take action as needed.
The Full Council will begin with the Call to Order, adoption of the agenda, approval of minutes, and awards/recognition. The Council will receive a Legal Briefing on Litigation from NOAA General Counsel (if needed) during Closed Session. The Council will receive staff reports including the Executive Director's Report, updates on the MyFishCount pilot project, recent hurricane impacts on fishing communities, and a report from the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team. Updates will be provided by NOAA Fisheries including a report on the status of recreational and commercial catches versus ACLs for species not covered during an earlier committee meeting, status of amendments under formal review, data-related reports, protected resources updates, update on the status of the of the Commercial Electronic Logbook Program, and the status of the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) conversions for recreational fishing estimates. The Council will discuss and take action as necessary.
The Council will review any Exempted Fishing Permits received as necessary. The Council will also receive a presentation on recent research activities conducted by the NOAA Ship
The Council will receive committee reports from the Snapper Grouper, Habitat, Dolphin Wahoo, SEDAR, Citizen Science, Personnel, SOPPs, and Executive Finance Committees, and take action as appropriate.
The Council will receive agency and liaison reports; and discuss other business and upcoming meetings. Under other business, the Council will receive a presentation on the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary and take action as necessary.
Council staff will provide a hands-on training session to learn about new electronic reporting requirements for federally permitted for-hire captains and practice using tools that will be available to meet the reporting requirements.
Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. 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 Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public hearings.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council will hold five public hearings to solicit public comments on the Chub Mackerel Amendment to the Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish Fishery Management Plan.
The meetings will be held in December 2018 and January 2019. Written comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. EST, January 18, 2019. See
•
•
•
•
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council is developing an amendment to consider adding Atlantic chub mackerel (
The Council will hold five public hearings on this amendment, during which Council staff will summarize the management alternatives under consideration prior to opening the hearing for public comments. The hearings schedule is as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Public comments will be accepted at the public hearings and can also be submitted via email, an online form, mail, or fax, as described in the
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office (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 hearings and webinar.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold ten in-person public hearings and a webinar public hearing to solicit public comments on Draft Amendment 50—State Management of Recreational Red Snapper.
The public hearings will take place December 3, 2018-January 17, 2019. The meetings and webinar will begin at 6 p.m. and will conclude no later than 9 p.m. For specific dates and times, see
The public documents can be obtained by contacting the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 4107 West Spruce Street, Suite 200, Tampa, FL 33607; (813) 348-1630 or on their website at
Dr. Ava Lasseter, Anthropologist;
The agenda for the following ten in-person hearings and one webinar are as follows: Council staff will brief the public on the purpose and need of the amendment. The Council is currently considering state management that would provide flexibility to the Gulf states to set the recreational red snapper fishing season and potentially other management measures. Council staff will also provide an overview of the actions and alternatives considered in the amendment including the Council's preferred alternatives.
Staff and a State Representative Council member will be available to answer any questions, and the public will have the opportunity to provide testimony on the amendment and other related testimony.
The schedule is as follows:
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) BroadbandUSA Program will host a Broadband Workshop in Carson City, Nevada on January 11, 2019. The purpose of the Workshop is to engage the public and stakeholders with information to accelerate broadband connectivity, improve digital inclusion, and support local priorities. The Workshop will provide information on topics including local broadband planning, funding, and engagement with service providers. Speakers and attendees from Nevada, federal agencies, and across the country will come together to explore ways to facilitate the expansion of broadband capacity, access, and utilization.
The Broadband Workshop will be held on January 11, 2019, from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. Pacific Time.
The Broadband Workshop will be held in Carson City, Nevada at the Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau, 401 South Carson Street, Carson City, NV 89701.
Janice Wilkins, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4678, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5791; email:
The NTIA's BroadbandUSA program promotes innovation and economic growth by supporting efforts to expand broadband access and meaningful use across America.
The Broadband Workshop is open to the public. Pre-registration is requested because space may be limited. NTIA asks registrants to provide their first and last name, title, organization/company, and email address for registration purposes, name tags to be provided at the workshop, and to receive any updates on the workshop. Information about the workshop is subject to change. Registration information, meeting updates, including changes in the agenda, and relevant documents will be available on NTIA's website at
The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as language interpretation or other ancillary aids, should notify Janice Wilkins at the contact information listed above at least ten (10) business days before the meeting so that accommodations can be made.
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 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.
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 listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following products 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:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Deletions from the Procurement List.
This action deletes a product and services from the Procurement List previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
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 10/12/2018 (83 FR 198), 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 product and services 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 product and services 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 and services deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product and services are deleted from the Procurement List:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e. A summary of the meeting will be prepared and filed in the Commission's public file for the project.
f. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate by phone. Please contact Adam Peer at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of a public meeting.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a meeting of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC or Council) as authorized under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The purpose of the meeting is to allow the EPA to present an overview of the Agency's Safe Drinking Water Act programs for the fiscal year 2019, including an introduction of the benefits of improving public drinking water system's capacity through partnerships. A public comment period will be provided.
The meeting will be held on December 6, 2018, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., eastern time, and on December 7, 2018 from 8:45 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., eastern time.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW, WJC South, Room 6226, ARS NETI Training Room, Washington, DC 20004.
Guests from the private sector must present an unexpired, government-issued photo identification (ID) that comports with requirements of the REAL ID Act, be screened through security equipment, sign in, and be verified/met in the lobby by an EPA employee.
The EPA will allocate one hour for the public to present comments at the meeting on December 7, 2018. Oral statements will be limited to five minutes per person during the public comment period. It is preferred that only one person present a statement on behalf of a group or organization. To ensure adequate time for public involvement, individuals or organizations interested in presenting an oral statement should notify: Tracey M. Ward, the NDWAC DFO, by email at:
Written statements intended for the meeting must be received before November 26, 2018, to be distributed to all members of the Council for their consideration. Any statements received on or after the date specified will become part of the permanent file for the meeting and will be forwarded to the Council members after conclusion of the meeting.
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:
Revision to FR Notice Published 10/12/2018; Retracted due to erroneous filing.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, November 20, 2018, to consider the following matters:
Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' Meetings.
Report of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the Board of Directors.
The meeting will be held in the Board Room located on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC.
This Board meeting will be webcast live via the internet and subsequently made available on-demand approximately one week after the event. Visit
The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (
Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202-898-7043.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary by email at
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Final notice.
This final notice announces our decision to approve the Community Health Accreditation Partner (CHAP) for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization for hospices that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs. A hospice that participates in Medicaid must also meet the Medicare Conditions for Participation (CoPs).
The approval is effective November 20, 2018 through November 20, 2024.
Lillian Williams, (410) 786-8636, or Monda Shaver, (410) 786-3410.
Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services in a hospice, provided certain requirements are met by the hospice. Section 1861(dd) of the Social Security Act (the Act) establishes distinct criteria for facilities seeking designation as a hospice. Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of facilities are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 418 specify the conditions that a hospice must meet in order to participate in the Medicare program, the scope of covered services and the conditions for Medicare payment for hospices.
Generally, to enter into an agreement, a hospice must first be certified as complying with the conditions set forth in part 418 and recommended to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for participation by a state survey agency. Thereafter, the hospice is subject to periodic surveys by a state survey agency to determine whether it continues to meet these conditions. However, there is an alternative to certification surveys by state agencies. Accreditation by a nationally recognized Medicare accreditation program approved by CMS may substitute for both initial and ongoing state review.
Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) finds that accreditation of a provider entity by an approved national accrediting organization meets or exceeds all applicable Medicare conditions, CMS may treat the provider entity as having met those conditions, that is, we may “deem” the provider entity to be in compliance. Accreditation by an accrediting organization is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.
If an accrediting organization is recognized by the Secretary as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting organization's approved program may be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions. A national accrediting organization applying for CMS approval of their accreditation program under 42 CFR part 488, subpart A, must provide CMS with reasonable assurance that the accrediting organization requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of accrediting organizations are set forth at § 488.5. Section 488.5(e)(2)(i) requires accrediting organizations to reapply for continued approval of its Medicare accreditation program every 6 years or sooner as determined by CMS. The Community Health Accreditation Partner's (CHAP'S) term of approval as a recognized accreditation program for its hospice accreditation program expires November 20, 2018.
Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act provides a statutory timetable to ensure that our review of applications for CMS-approval of an accreditation program is conducted in a timely manner. The Act provides us 210 days after the date of receipt of a complete application, with any documentation necessary to make the determination, to complete our survey activities and application process. Within 60 days after receiving a complete application, we must publish a notice in the
On June 15, 2018, we published a proposed notice (83 FR 27992) in the
• An onsite administrative review of CHAP's: (1) Corporate policies; (2) financial and human resources available to accomplish the proposed surveys; (3) procedures for training, monitoring, and evaluation of its hospice surveyors; (4) ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited hospices; and (5) survey review and decision-making process for accreditation.
• A comparison of CHAP's Medicare hospice accreditation program standards to our current Medicare hospice Conditions of Participation (CoPs).
• A documentation review of CHAP's survey process to:
++ Determine the composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and CHAP's ability to provide continuing surveyor training.
++ Compare CHAP's processes to those we require of state survey agencies, including periodic resurvey and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited hospices.
++ Evaluate CHAP's procedures for monitoring hospices found to be out of compliance with CHAP's program requirements. This pertains only to monitoring procedures when CHAP identifies non-compliance. If noncompliance is identified by a state survey agency through a validation survey, the state survey agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.9(c).
++ Assess CHAP's ability to report deficiencies to the surveyed hospice and respond to the hospice's plan of correction in a timely manner.
++ Establish CHAP's ability to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.
++ Determine the adequacy of CHAP's staff and other resources.
++ Confirm CHAP's ability to provide adequate funding for the completion of required surveys.
++ Confirm CHAP's policies to surveys being unannounced.
++ Obtain CHAP's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as we may require, including corrective action plans.
In accordance with section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the June 15, 2018 proposed notice also solicited public comments regarding whether CHAP's requirements met or exceeded the Medicare CoPs for hospices. No comments were received in response to our proposed notice.
We compared CHAP's hospice accreditation requirements and survey process with the Medicare CoPs of part 418, and the survey and certification process requirements of parts 488 and 489. Our review and evaluation of CHAP's hospice application, which were conducted as described in section III of this final notice, yielded the following areas where, as of the date of this notice, CHAP has completed revising its standards and certification processes in order to ensure that hospices accredited by CHAP meet the requirements at:
• § 418.64(d)(2), to ensure the dietary needs of patients are met.
• § 418.76(b)(1), to ensure training is conducted by a registered nurse, or a licensed practical nurse under the supervision of a registered nurse.
• § 418.76(b)(3)(xiii), to ensure that any other task that the hospice may choose to have an aide perform must be included in the content of the hospice aide classroom and supervised practical training.
• § 418.76(d)(1), to ensure that in-service training is supervised by a registered nurse.
• § 418.76(h)(3)(iv) and (v), to address the requirement that the supervising nurse must assess an aide's ability to demonstrate initial and continued satisfactory performance in meeting outcome criteria for the hospice's infection control policy and procedures and for reporting changes in the patient's conditions.
• § 418.76(k)(3), to address the requirement for homemakers to report concerns to the member of the interdisciplinary group who is responsible for coordinating homemaker services.
• § 418.104, to address the requirement allowing medical records to be maintained electronically.
• § 418.110(d)(3), to address the requirement that provisions of the adopted edition of the Life Safety Code do not apply in a state if CMS finds that a fire and safety code imposed by state law adequately protects patients in hospices.
• § 418.113, to ensure compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local emergency preparedness requirements.
• § 488.5(a)(7) through (9), to ensure that new surveyors receive the required initial orientation training, and that all new surveyors receive an evaluation of performance, in accordance with CHAP policies.
• § 488.5(a)(12), to ensure that complaint surveys are conducted in a manner that meets or exceeds the processes and investigation practices of CMS; that the rationale for the decision whether to conduct an onsite survey or not, is clearly documented in the complaint file, according to CHAP policy; and, to ensure that complaints are closed out properly with appropriate notification to complainants.
Based on our review and observations described in section III of this final notice, we approve CHAP as a national accreditation organization for hospices that request participation in the Medicare program, effective November 20, 2018 through November 20, 2024.
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
The National Descriptive Study (of the National Evaluation of the SRAE Program) has multiple components. This information collection request only pertains to the Early Implementation Study, which will provide an early catalogue of SRAE programs' implementation. ACF seeks approval to collect the following information:
Interview Guide for Use with SRAE grantees.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of premarket approval applications (PMAs) and humanitarian device exemption applications (HDEs), that have been approved. This list is intended to inform the public of the availability of safety and effectiveness summaries of approved PMAs through the internet and the Agency's Dockets Management Staff.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Joshua Nipper, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1650, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6524.
In accordance with section 515(d)(4) and (e)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360e(d)(4) and (e)(2)), notification of an order approving, denying, or withdrawing approval of a PMA will continue to include a notice of opportunity to request review of the order under section 515(g) of the FD&C Act. The 30-day period for requesting reconsideration of an FDA action under § 10.33(b) (21 CFR 10.33(b)) for notices announcing approval of a PMA begins on the day the notice is placed on the internet. Section 10.33(b) provides that FDA may, for good cause, extend this 30-day period. Reconsideration of a denial or withdrawal of approval of a PMA may be sought only by the applicant; in these cases, the 30-day period will begin when the applicant is notified by FDA in writing of its decision.
The regulations provide that FDA publish a list of available safety and effectiveness summaries of PMA approvals and denials that were announced during that quarter. The following is a list of approved PMAs for which summaries of safety and effectiveness were placed on the internet from January 1, 2018, through September 18, 2018. There were no denial actions during this period. The list provides the manufacturer's name, the product's generic name or the trade name, and the approval date.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the documents at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meetings; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing three public meetings entitled “Electronic Submission of Adverse Event Reports to FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) Using International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) E2B(R3) Standards.” The purpose of these public meetings is to provide the pharmaceutical industry and other interested parties with information on the plans, progress, and technical specifications to upgrade electronic submission standards for drug, biological, and drug/biologic-led combination products for the premarket and postmarket safety surveillance programs managed by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). These meetings will focus on enhancements to electronic submission of Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) in FAERS using ICH E2B(R3) standards.
FDA is seeking input from stakeholders as it fulfills its commitment to implement ICH E2B(R3) standards by holding three public meetings. FDA will use the information provided by the public to inform the enhancements to FAERS required for the implementation of ICH E2B(R3) standards and relevant regional variations.
The first public meeting will be held on January 25, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The second public meeting will be held on July 17, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The third public meeting will be held on February 19, 2020 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Submit either electronic or written comments on these public meetings by February 25, 2019, for the first public meeting; by August 16, 2019, for the second public meeting, and by March 20, 2020, for the third public meeting. See the
Each public meeting will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503, Section A), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1, where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. For timely consideration, we request that electronic comments be submitted before or within 30 days after each public meeting (
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
Suranjan De, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 4307, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-0498, email:
FDA is committed to achieve the long-term goal of improving the predictability and consistency of the electronic submission process and enhancing transparency and accountability of FDA information technology-related activities. FDA participated in the development of ICH E2B guideline
FDA will present its plan to incorporate ICH E2B(R3) recommended standards into the requirements for the electronic submission of adverse event reports to FAERS. The meetings will include a general discussion of CDER's and CBER's plans to revise the FDA Regional Implementation Specifications for premarketing and postmarketing adverse event reporting. The goal of this revision is to enhance the quality of adverse event reports received by the Agency by incorporating ICH E2B(R3) recommendations into FDA Regional Implementation Specifications. The information exchange at the meetings will enhance the pharmaceutical industry's knowledge of the processes needed to implement ICH E2B(R3) into their systems. In addition, the comments provided by participating stakeholders will inform CDER's and CBER's plans for the implementation of ICH E2B(R3) for drugs, biologics, and drug/biologic-led combination products.
During the public meetings, FDA intends to discuss: (1) E2B(R3) Regional (U.S.) Data Elements; (2) Usage of Data Standards in E2B(R3); (3) Submission paths for premarket and postmarket ICSRs; (4) Data Migration Exceptions; and (5) FDA Regional Implementation Specifications for ICH E2B(R3) Implementation. One or more of the
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending the public meetings must register by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on December 20, 2018, for the first meeting, June 14, 2019, for the second meeting, and January 17, 2020, for the third meeting. 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 time and space permit, onsite registration on the day of the public meeting/public workshop will be provided beginning at 8 a.m.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Chenoa Conley, 301-796-0035, email:
If you have never attended a Connect Pro event before, test your connection at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is requesting that any consumer organizations interested in participating in the selection of voting and/or nonvoting consumer representatives to serve on its advisory committees or panels notify FDA in writing. FDA is also requesting nominations for voting and/or nonvoting consumer representatives to serve on advisory committees and/or panels for which vacancies currently exist or are expected to occur in the near future. Nominees recommended to serve as a voting or nonvoting consumer representative may be self-nominated or may be nominated by a consumer organization.
FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities on its advisory committees and, therefore, encourages nominations of appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.
Any consumer organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate voting or nonvoting member to represent consumer interests on an FDA advisory committee or panel may send a letter or email stating that interest to FDA (see
All statements of interest from consumer organizations interested in participating in the selection process should be submitted electronically to
Consumer representative nominations should be submitted electronically by
For questions relating to participation in the selection process
For questions relating to specific advisory committees or panels, contact the appropriate contact person listed in table 1.
FDA is requesting nominations for voting and/or nonvoting consumer representatives for the vacancies listed in table 2:
Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of infectious diseases and disorders.
Reviews and evaluates data on the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drugs for use in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology, and related specialties.
Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of cardiovascular and renal disorders.
Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and contrast media used in diagnostic radiology.
Provides advice on scientific, technical, and medical issues concerning drug compounding by pharmacists and licensed practitioners.
Reviews and evaluates data on the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices and makes recommendations for their regulation. With the exception of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according to its specialty area, advises on the classification or reclassification of devices into one of three regulatory categories; advises on any possible risks to health associated with the use of devices; advises on formulation of product development protocols; reviews premarket approval applications for medical devices; reviews guidelines and guidance documents; recommends exemption of certain devices from the application of portions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; advises on the necessity to ban a device; and responds to requests from the Agency to review and make recommendations on specific issues or problems concerning the safety and effectiveness of devices. With the exception of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according to its specialty area, may also make appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs on issues relating to the design of clinical studies regarding the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices.
The Dental Products Panel also functions at times as a dental drug panel. The functions of the dental drug panel are to evaluate and recommend whether various prescription drug products should be changed to over-the-counter status and to evaluate data and make recommendations concerning the approval of new dental drug products for human use.
The Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel provides advice to the Commissioner on complex or contested scientific issues between FDA and medical device sponsors, applicants, or manufacturers relating to specific products, marketing applications, regulatory decisions and actions by FDA, and Agency guidance and policies. The Panel makes recommendations on issues that are lacking resolution, are highly complex in nature, or result from challenges to regular advisory panel proceedings or Agency decisions or actions.
Persons nominated for membership as consumer representatives on committees or panels should meet the following criteria: (1) Demonstrate an affiliation with and/or active participation in consumer or community-based organizations, (2) be able to analyze technical data, (3) understand research design, (4) discuss benefits and risks, and (5) evaluate the safety and efficacy of products under review. The consumer representative should be able to represent the
Selection of members representing consumer interests is conducted through procedures that include the use of organizations representing the public interest and public advocacy groups. These organizations recommend nominees for the Agency's selection. Representatives from the consumer health branches of Federal, State, and local governments also may participate in the selection process. Any consumer organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate voting or nonvoting member to represent consumer interests should send a letter stating that interest to FDA (see
Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will compile a list of consumer organizations that will participate in the selection process and will forward to each such organization a ballot listing at least two qualified nominees selected by the Agency based on the nominations received, together with each nominee's current curriculum vitae or resume. Ballots are to be filled out and returned to FDA within 30 days. The nominee receiving the highest number of votes ordinarily will be selected to serve as the member representing consumer interests for that particular advisory committee or panel.
Any interested person or organization may nominate one or more qualified persons to represent consumer interests on the Agency's advisory committees or panels. Self-nominations are also accepted. Nominations must include a current, complete résumé or curriculum vitae for each nominee and a signed copy of the Acknowledgement and Consent form available at the FDA Advisory Nomination Portal (see
Nominations must also specify the advisory committee(s) or panel(s) for which the nominee is recommended. In addition, nominations must also acknowledge that the nominee is aware of the nomination unless self-nominated. FDA will ask potential candidates to provide detailed information concerning such matters as financial holdings, employment, and research grants and/or contracts to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflicts of interest. Members will be invited to serve for terms up to 4 years.
FDA will review all nominations received within the specified timeframes and prepare a ballot containing the names of qualified nominees. Names not selected will remain on a list of eligible nominees and be reviewed periodically by FDA to determine continued interest. Upon selecting qualified nominees for the ballot, FDA will provide those consumer organizations that are participating in the selection process with the opportunity to vote on the listed nominees. Only organizations vote in the selection process. Persons who nominate themselves to serve as voting or nonvoting consumer representatives will not participate in the selection process.
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the ICR related to the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Jurisdictional Survey that is to be administered in the U.S. territories and jurisdictions (excluding the District of Columbia) for purposes of collecting information related to the well-being of all mothers, children, and their families.
Comments on this ICR must be received no later than January 15, 2019.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
By legislation (Section 505(a) of Title V of the Social Security Act), the MCH Block Grant Application/Annual Report must be developed by, or in consultation with, the State MCH Health agency. In establishing state reporting requirements, HRSA's Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) considers the availability of national data from other federal agencies. Data for the national performance and outcome measures are pre-populated for states in
Sponsored by HRSA's MCHB, the MCH Jurisdictional Survey is designed to produce data on the physical and emotional health of mothers and children under 18 years of age in the following eight jurisdictions—American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Marshall Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands. More specifically, the MCH Jurisdictional Survey collects information on factors related to the well-being of children, including health status, visits to health care providers, health care costs, and health insurance coverage. In addition, the MCH Jurisdictional Survey collects information on factors related to the well-being of mothers, including health risk behaviors, health conditions, and preventive health practices. This data collection will enable the jurisdictions to meet federal performance reporting requirements and to demonstrate the impact of Title V funding relative to MCH outcomes for the U.S. jurisdictions in reporting on their unique MCH priority needs.
The MCH Jurisdictional Survey was designed based on information-gathering activities with Title V leadership and program staff in the jurisdictions, experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other organizations with relevant data collection experience. Survey items are based on the National Survey of Children's Health, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), the Youth Behavior Surveillance System, and selected other federal studies. The Survey is designed as a core questionnaire to be administered across all jurisdictions with a supplemental set of survey questions customized to the needs of each jurisdiction.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that on October 22, 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Debarring Official, on behalf of the Secretary of HHS, issued a final notice of debarment based on an Administrative Law Judge's finding of research misconduct against Rakesh Srivastava, Ph.D., former Eminent Scholar and Professor, University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC). Dr. Srivastava engaged in research misconduct in research proposed or reported in grant application 1 R01 CA175776-01, submitted to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), on June 5, 2012. The administrative actions, including two (2) years of debarment, were implemented beginning on October 22, 2018, and are detailed below.
Wanda K. Jones, Dr. P.H., Interim Director, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8200.
ORI issued a charge letter making a finding of research misconduct and proposing HHS administrative actions. Dr. Srivastava subsequently requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the Departmental Appeals Board to dispute the finding. ORI moved for summary judgment. On September 5, 2018, the ALJ granted summary judgment in favor of ORI and issued his recommended decision, finding that Respondent intentionally committed research misconduct by submitting to NIH a grant application that included plagiarized words, which included significant text from another principal investigator's grant application that was contained in the Specific Aims and Research Strategy sections of the Respondent's grant application without attribution to the other principal investigator. The ALJ held that appropriate administrative actions included a two-year debarment from any contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility for or involvement in nonprocurement programs of the United States Government referred to as “covered transactions.” 2 CFR parts 180 and 376. The ALJ held that it was an appropriate administrative action to also impose a two-year prohibition from serving in any capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, or peer review committee, or as a consultant. Under the regulation, the ALJ's recommended decision went to the Assistant Secretary for Health, who did not modify it and forwarded it to the HHS Debarring Official, who is the deciding official for the debarment. The ALJ decision constituted the findings of fact to the HHS Debarring Official in accordance with 2 CFR 180.845(c). On October 22, 2018, the HHS Debarring Official issued a final notice of debarment to begin on October 22, 2018, and end on October 21, 2020.
Thus, the research misconduct finding set forth above became effective, and the following administrative actions have been implemented for a period of two (2) years, beginning on October 22, 2018:
(1) Dr. Srivastava is debarred from any contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility or involvement in nonprocurement programs of the United States Government referred to as “covered transactions” pursuant to HHS' Implementation (2 CFR part 376) of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (2 CFR part 180); and
(2) Dr. Srivastava is prohibited from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.
Office of HIV/AIDS and Infectious Disease Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
This notice will serve to announce that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is seeking nominations of non-federal individuals who represent diverse scientific disciplines and views and are interested in being considered for appointment to the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group (Working Group). Resumes or curricula vitae from qualified individuals who wish to be considered for appointment as a member of the Working Group are currently being accepted.
Nominations must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST, on December 14, 2018.
All nominations should be sent to the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group email address at
James Berger, MS, MT (ASCP), SBB, Senior Advisor for Blood and Tissue Policy; Telephone: (202) 795-7608; Fax: (202) 691-2101; Email address:
Section 2062 of the 21st Century Cures Act requires establishment of the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group. The Working Group is governed by provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees. The 21st Century Cures Act is intended to advance the research and development of new therapies and diagnostics and make substantial federal investments in a wide range of health priorities. The Working Group is a non-discretionary federal advisory committee.
The federal members are appointed to serve for the duration of time that the Working Group is authorized to operate. Participation of the appointed federal members is at the discretion of their respective agency head. The public members are invited to serve overlapping terms of up to four years. Any public member who is appointed to fill the vacancy of an unexpired term will be appointed to serve for the remainder of that term. A non-federal public member may serve after the expiration of their term until their successor has taken office, but no longer than 180 days. Terms of more than two years are contingent upon renewal of the charter of the Working Group. Pursuant to advance written agreement, public members of the Working Group will receive no stipend for the advisory service that they render as members of the Working Group. However, public members will receive per diem and reimbursement for travel expenses incurred in relation to performing duties for the Working Group, as authorized by law under 5 U.S.C. 5703 for persons who are employed intermittently to perform services for the federal government and in accordance with federal travel regulations.
Every effort will be made to ensure that the Working Group is a diverse group of individuals with representation from various geographic locations, racial and ethnic minorities, all genders, and persons living with disabilities.
Individuals being considered for appointment as public voting members will be required to complete and submit a report of their financial holdings. An ethics review must be conducted to ensure that individuals appointed as public voting members of the Working Group are not involved in any activity that may pose a potential conflict of interest for the official duties that are to be performed. This is a federal ethics requirement that must be satisfied upon entering the position and annually throughout the established term of appointment on the Working Group.
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
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Cures Acceleration Network Review Board.
The meeting will be open to the public, viewing virtually by WebEx. Individuals can register to view and access the meeting by the link below.
1. Click “Register”. On the registration form, enter your information and then click “Submit” to complete the required registration.
2. You will receive a personalized email with the live event link.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) will hold its quarterly meeting on Wednesday, December 5, 2018, in Herndon, Virginia. The meeting will be open to the public.
The COAC will meet on Wednesday, December 5, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST. Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Dulles Washington Airport, 13869 Park Center Road, Herndon,Virginia 20171. For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Ms. Florence Constant-Gibson, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, at (202) 344-1440 as soon as possible.
For members of the public who plan to attend the meeting in person, please register by 5:00 p.m. EST on December 4, 2018, either online at
For members of the public who plan to participate via webinar, please register online at
Please feel free to share this information with other interested members of your organization or association.
Members of the public who are pre-registered to attend in person or via webinar and later need to cancel, please do so by December 4, 2018, utilizing the following links:
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues the committee will consider prior to the formulation of recommendations as listed in the Agenda section below.
Comments must be submitted in writing and received no later than December 3, 2018, and must be identified by Docket No. USCBP-2018-0041, and may be submitted by
•
•
•
•
There will be multiple public comment periods held during the meeting on December 5, 2018. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to two (2) minutes or less to facilitate greater participation. Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker. Please note that the public comment period for speakers may end before the time indicated on the schedule that is posted on the CBP web page,
Ms. Florence Constant-Gibson, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229; telephone (202) 344-1440; facsimile (202) 325-4290; or Mr. Bradley Hayes, Executive Director and Designated Federal Officer at (202) 344-1440.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix. The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) provides advice to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on matters pertaining to the commercial operations of CBP and related functions as prescribed by law or as directed by the Secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Treasury.
The COAC will hear from the current subcommittees on the topics listed below and then will review, deliberate, provide observations, and formulate recommendations on how to proceed:
1. The Secure Trade Lanes Subcommittee will present plans for the scope and activities of the Trusted Trader and CTPAT Minimum Security Criteria Working Groups. It is anticipated that recommendations will be presented regarding the proposed Forced Labor Trusted Trader Strategy. The subcommittee will also deliver recommendations from the Petroleum Pipeline Working Group regarding the results of a proof of concept test that used the Automated Commercial Environment to electronically report and manage petroleum moving in-bond via pipeline; as well as recommendations from the In-bond Working Group regarding potential automation, visibility, system and regulatory issues.
2. The COAC Next Generation Facilitation Subcommittee will discuss the E-Commerce Working Group's progress on mapping the supply chains of various modes of transportation to identify the differences between e-commerce and traditional channels. The subcommittee will also provide an update on the status of the Emerging Technologies Working Group's NAFTA/CAFTA, Intellectual Property Rights, and Pipeline Blockchain Proof of Concept projects. Finally, the subcommittee will provide a progress report for the Regulatory Reform Working Group as it completes its review of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CBP regulations) and begins its preparation of high-level recommendations.
3. The Intelligent Enforcement Subcommittee will provide recommendations from the Intellectual Property Rights Working Group and updates from the Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty, Bond, and Forced Labor Working Groups.
Meeting materials will be available by December 3, 2018 at:
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) California Desert District Advisory Council (DAC) will meet as indicated below.
The BLM's California DAC will hold a public meeting on December 14-15, 2018. The DAC will participate in a field tour of BLM-administered public lands on Friday, December 14, 2018, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. and will meet in formal session on Saturday, December 15, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The December 15 meeting will take place at the Clarion Inn Conference Room, 901 China Lake Blvd., Ridgecrest, CA 93555. Final agendas for the Friday field tour and the Saturday public meeting will be posted on the BLM web page at:
Stephen Razo, BLM California Desert District External Affairs, telephone: 951-697-5217, email:
All DAC meetings are open to the public. The 15-member DAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management on BLM-administered lands in the California Desert District. The agenda will include time for public comment at the beginning and end of the meeting, as well as during various presentations. While the Saturday meeting is tentatively scheduled from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., the meeting could conclude earlier if the DAC completes its presentations and discussions early. Members of the public interested in a particular agenda item or discussion should schedule their arrival accordingly. The agenda for the Saturday meeting will include information on mining projects, and updates from DAC members, the BLM California Desert District Manager, and DAC subgroups. Written comments will also be accepted at the time of the meeting and, if copies are provided to the recorder, will be incorporated into the minutes.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask in your comment that the BLM withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, the BLM cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the coal resources, in the lands described below, in Kane County, Utah, will be offered for competitive sale, by sealed bid, in accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended.
The lease sale will be held at 1:00 p.m. on November 28, 2018. Sealed bids must be received by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Utah State Office Public Room on or before 10 a.m. on November 28, 2018.
The lease sale will be held at the BLM Utah State Office, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1345.
Sealed bids must be submitted to the Public Room, BLM Utah State Office, same address.
Contact Jeff McKenzie, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1345 or telephone 801-539-4038. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 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 for the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
This sale is being held in response to a Lease by Application (LBA) filed by Alton Coal Company LLC. These lands are located in Kane County, Utah, southwest of Alton, Utah. The Federal coal resources to be offered are located in the following described lands:
The area described contains 2,108.71 acres.
The coal in the Alton Tract has one minable coal bed, which is designated as the Smirl seam. This seam is approximately 17 feet thick. The coal bed contains approximately 30.8 million tons of recoverable subbituminous B/High-volatile C bituminous coal. The coal quality in the Smirl coal bed is: 10,120 Btu/lb., 14.79 percent moisture, 7.59 percent ash, 33.68 percent volatile matter, 41.95 percent fixed carbon, and 1.11 percent sulfur.
The tract will be leased to the qualified bidder, of the highest cash amount provided,that the high bid meets or exceeds the BLM's estimate of the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the tract. The minimum bid for the tract is $100 per acre or fraction thereof. The minimum bid is not intended to represent FMV. The authorized officer will determine if the bids meet FMV after the sale.
The sealed bids should be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, or be hand delivered to the Public Room, BLM Utah State Office, at the address provided in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is scheduled to file plats of survey 30 calendar days from the date of this publication in the BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the BLM, are necessary for the management of these lands.
Protests must be received by the BLM by December 17, 2018.
You may submit written protests to the Wyoming State Director at WY957, Bureau of Land Management, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003.
Sonja Sparks, BLM Wyoming Chief Cadastral Surveyor at 307-775-6225 or
The lands surveyed are: The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the west boundary and subdivisional lines, designed to restore the corners in their true locations according to the best available evidence, the survey of a portion of the District Court of Howard County rendered thread of avulsed abandoned river bed through section 18, and the survey of Lot 8 of section 18, Township 15 North, Range 9 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Nebraska, Group No. 187, was accepted November 8, 2018.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of certain tracts and the subdivisional lines, designed to restore the corners in their true original locations according to the best available evidence, and the survey of the subdivision of section 17, Township 57 North, Range 74 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 963, was accepted November 8, 2018.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of the Eighth Standard Parallel North, through Range 70 West, a portion of the west boundary, and a portion of the subdivisional lines, designed to restore the corners in their true original locations according to the best available evidence, Township 32 North, Range 70 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 978, was accepted November 8, 2018.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east and west boundaries, and portions of the subdivisional lines, designed to restore the corners in their true original locations according to the best available evidence, Township 33 North, Range 70 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 979, was accepted November 8, 2018.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, designed to restore the corners in their true original locations according to the best available evidence, and the survey of the subdivision of section 34, and the metes-and-bounds survey of Parcel A, section 34, Township 27 North, Range 90 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 999, was accepted November 8, 2018.
A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication with the Wyoming State Director at the above address. Any notice of protest received after the scheduled date of official filing will be untimely and will not be considered. A written statement of reasons in support of a protest, if not filed with the notice of protest, must be filed with the State Director within 30 calendar days after the notice of protest is filed. If a notice of protest against a plat of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day following dismissal or resolution of all protests of the plat.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, you should be aware that your entire protest—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Copies of the preceding described plats and field notes are available to the public at a cost of $4.20 per plat and $.13 per page of field notes.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance
Comments should be submitted by December 3, 2018.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW, MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before October 27, 2018. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource:
Nomination submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nomination and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination and supports listing the property in the National Register of Historic Places.
Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before November 3, 2018, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by December 3, 2018.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW, MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before November 3, 2018. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource:
Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior
Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, announce the area identified for leasing, and hold public scoping meetings.
Consistent with the regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is announcing its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed 2019 Beaufort Sea Lease Sale in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. The EIS will focus on the potential effects of leasing, exploration, development, and production of oil and natural gas in the proposed lease sale area. In addition to the no action alternative (
Comments may be made on-line. Navigate to
• December 3, 2018, Barrow High School, Utqiaġvik, Alaska;
• December 4, 2018, Kisik Community Center, Nuiqsut, Alaska;
• December 5, 2018, Community Center, Kaktovik, Alaska; and
• December 6, 2018, Dena'ina Civic and Convention Center, Anchorage, Alaska.
For information on the 2019 Beaufort Sea Lease Sale EIS, the submission of comments, or BOEM's policies associated with this notice, please contact Sharon Randall, Chief of Environmental Analysis Section, BOEM, Alaska OCS Region, 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99503, (907) 334-5200.
On January 4, 2018, the Secretary of the Interior released the 2019-2024 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Draft Proposed Program. The Draft Proposed Program includes the proposed 2019 Beaufort Sea Lease Sale.
The proposed lease sale area includes all available OCS blocks in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. The Beaufort Sea Planning Area is located offshore of the State of Alaska and consists of 11,876 whole and partial lease blocks covering roughly 26.2 million hectares (approximately 65 million acres) of the Beaufort Sea. To view the specifics of the area recommended for leasing, go to:
This Notice of Intent is not an announcement to hold a lease sale, but is a continuation of the information gathering process and is published early in the environmental review process in furtherance of the goals of NEPA. The comments received during scoping will help inform the content of the 2019 Beaufort Sea Lease Sale EIS. If, after completion of the EIS, the Department of the Interior's Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management chooses to hold the proposed lease sale, that decision and the details related to the lease sale (including the lease sale area and any mitigation) will be announced in a Record of Decision and Final Notice of Sale.
BOEM has developed and also seeks public input on the following draft alternatives:
• Offshore Whaling Areas Alternative: This alternative is proposed to minimize conflicts between subsistence whaling practices and oil and gas activities.
• Environmentally Important Areas Alternative: This alternative is proposed to reduce impacts to several known environmentally important areas (Barrow Canyon, Harrison Bay/Colville River Delta, the Bolder Patch, and Kaktovik).
• Deepwater Exclusion Alternative: This alternative is proposed to focus the environmental analyses while offering leases in areas with the highest known resource potential.
Maps and more details on each of these draft alternatives can be found at:
These draft alternatives are based on previous OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program and response to stakeholder comments made during the development of the 2019-2024 Draft Proposed Program (published January 8, 2018 (
BOEM will consider additional alternatives, exclusion and/or mitigation suggestions identified during scoping meetings and the comment period initiated by this notice of intent in the preparation of the EIS.
BOEM will use the NEPA commenting process to satisfy the public comment requirements of section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f), as provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3).
This notice of intent is published pursuant to the regulations at 40 CFR 1501.7 implementing the provisions of NEPA.
Office of Management and Budget.
Notice.
In March 2018, the Office of Management and Budget launched the President's Management Agenda (PMA). The PMA established a Cross-Agency Priority (CAP) goal titled: “Results-Oriented Accountability for Grants”. This notice is meant to notify the public of the opportunity to provide input on proposed grants management common data standards that have been created in support of the Results-Oriented Accountability for Grants CAP goal.
Comments must be received on or before January 15, 2019.
Interested parties should provide comments at the following link:
Jeannette M. Mandycz, Office of Federal Financial Management, OMB,
In March 2018, OMB launched the President's Management Agenda (PMA). The PMA lays out a long-term vision for modernizing the Federal Government in key areas that will improve the ability of agencies to deliver mission outcomes, provide excellent service, and effectively steward taxpayer dollars on behalf of the American people. The PMA established a Cross-Agency Priority (CAP) goal titled “Results-Oriented Accountability for Grants” with the intent to rebalance grants compliance efforts with a focus on results for the American taxpayer; standardizing grant reporting data, and improving data collection in ways that will increase efficiency, promote evaluation, reduce reporting burden, and benefit the American taxpayer. Additional details regarding the CAP goal can be found at:
In order to bring grants management into the digital age and allow recipients to focus more time on performing work that delivers results, there is a need to develop and implement core grants management data standards and modernize grants management information technology solutions. In support of this goal, a draft of core grants management data standards have been developed and are now available for your review. Once finalized, the core grants management data standards will contribute to a future state where grants data are interoperable, there are fewer internal and public-facing grants management systems, and Federal awarding agencies and recipients can leverage data to successfully implement a risk-based, data-driven approach to managing Federal grants. A draft of the proposed grants management common data standards are available for your review and input at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Standard review plan—draft section revision; reopening of comment period.
On September 28, 2018, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a request for public comment on draft NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition,” Standard Review Plans (SPRs) 2.3.3, “Onsite Meteorological Measurements Program”; 2.4.6, “Tsunami Hazards”; and 2.4.9, “Channel Migration or Diversion.” The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on October 29, 2018. The NRC has decided to reopen the public comment period on these documents for 30 days to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit comments.
The comment period for the document published on September 28, 2018 (83 FR 49132) has been reopened. Comments must be filed no later than December 17, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Mark D. Notich, Office of New Reactors, telephone: 301-415-3053; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0176 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0176 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
On September 28, 2018 (83 FR 49132), the NRC published a request for public comment on draft NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition,” Standard Review Plans (SRPs) 2.3.3, “Onsite Meteorological Measurements Program”; 2.4.6, “Tsunami Hazards”; and 2.4.9, “Channel Migration or Diversion” (ADAMS Accession No. ML18207A487). These sections have been developed to assist NRC staff in reviewing applications submitted per the requirements under parts 50 and 52 of title 10 of the
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through the ADAMS Public Documents collection, as indicated.
The public comment period for SRPs 2.3.3, 2.4.6, and 2.4.9 originally closed on October 29, 2018. The NRC held a public meeting on October 22, 2018 during which technical issues precluded public participation via webinar. Accordingly, the NRC has decided to reopen the public comment period on these documents to allow more time for members of the public to read the meeting transcript and assemble and submit their comments. The public meeting was transcribed, and the transcription is available on ADAMS at ML18303A102. In addition, the slides presented during the meeting are available on ADAMS at ML18292A592.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of November 19, 26, December 3, 10, 17, 24, 2018.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 19, 2018.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 10, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 17, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 24, 2018.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or by email at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Standard review plan—draft section revision; reopening of comment period.
On September 28, 2018, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a request for public comment on draft NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition,” Standard Review Plans (SRP) 2.5.3, “Surface Deformation.” The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on October 29, 2018. The NRC has decided to reopen the public comment period for this document for 30 days to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit comments.
The comment period for the document published on September 28, 2018 (83 FR 49139) has been reopened. Comments must be filed no later than December 17, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Mark D. Notich, Office of New Reactors, telephone: 301-415-3053; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0178 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0178 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
On September 28, 2018 (83 FR 49139), the NRC published a request for public comment on draft NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition,” SRP2.5.3, “Surface Deformation” (ADAMS Accession No. ML18186A623). This section has been developed to assist NRC staff in reviewing applications submitted per the requirements under parts 50 and 52 of title 10 of the
The public comment period for SRP 2.5.3 was originally closed on October 29, 2018. The NRC held a public meeting on October 22, 2018 during which technical issues precluded public participation via webinar. Accordingly, the NRC has decided to reopen the public comment period on this document to allow more time for members of the public to read the meeting transcript and assemble and submit their comments. The public meeting was transcribed, and the transcription is available on ADAMS at ML18303A102. In addition, the slides presented during the meeting are available on ADAMS at ML18292A592.
The draft revision and current revision to NUREG-0800, Section 2.5.3, “Surface Deformation” are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML18183A044 and ML13316C064, respectively. The redline-strikeout version comparing the draft Revision 6 and the current version of Revision 5 is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18267A203.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Thursday, December 13, 2018 2 p.m. (OPEN Portion); 2:15 p.m. (CLOSED Portion).
Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC.
Meeting OPEN to the Public from 2 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.; Closed portion will commence at 2:15 p.m. (approx.).
Information on the meeting may be obtained from Catherine F.I. Andrade at (202) 336-8768, or via email at
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice of Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee Meeting Dates in 2019.
According to the provisions of section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given that meetings of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee will be held on—
The meetings will start at 10 a.m. and will be held in Room 5A06A, Office of Personnel Management Building, 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC.
The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee is composed of a Chair, five representatives from labor unions holding exclusive bargaining rights for Federal prevailing rate employees, and five representatives from Federal agencies. Entitlement to membership on the Committee is provided for in 5 U.S.C. 5347.
The Committee's primary responsibility is to review the Prevailing Rate System and other matters pertinent to establishing prevailing rates under subchapter IV, chapter 53, 5 U.S.C., as amended, and from time to time advise the Office of Personnel Management.
These scheduled meetings are open to the public with both labor and management representatives attending. During the meetings either the labor members or the management members may caucus separately to devise strategy and formulate positions. Premature disclosure of the matters discussed in these caucuses would unacceptably impair the ability of the Committee to reach a consensus on the matters being considered and would disrupt substantially the disposition of its business. Therefore, these caucuses will be closed to the public because of a determination made by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management under the provisions of section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B). These caucuses may, depending on the issues involved, constitute a substantial portion of a meeting.
Annually, the Chair compiles a report of pay issues discussed and concluded recommendations. These reports are available to the public. Reports for calendar years 2008 to 2016 are posted at
The public is invited to submit material in writing to the Chair on Federal Wage System pay matters felt to be deserving of the Committee's attention. Additional information on these meetings may be obtained by contacting the Committee at Office of Personnel Management, Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee, Room 5H27, 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415, (202) 606-2858.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 9, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 9, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 9, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 9, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 9, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to modify its fee schedule.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to correct an inadvertent oversight to update an amended transaction fee in a footnote. Specifically, on August 8, 2018, the Exchange filed a rule filing, SR-CboeEDGX-2018-032, which proposed, among other things, to increase the standard rate for Bats Auction Mechanism (“BAM”) Contra orders (
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to update an inaccurate rate under a footnote of the Fees Schedule, will alleviate potential confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and protecting investors and the public interest. As noted above, the proposed filing does not substantively change any transaction fees, but merely corrects an inadvertent oversight from a previous rule filing to update the rate under a footnote.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change does not address competitive issues, but rather, as discussed above, is merely intended to correct an inadvertent marking omission relating to a rate change made in a previous rule filing, which will alleviate potential confusion.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend the time frame for the correction of Block Trade and Exchange of Contract for Related Position (“ECRP”) transaction reporting errors. The scope of this filing is limited solely to the application of the proposed rule amendments to security futures that may be traded on CFE. Although no security futures are currently listed for trading on CFE, CFE may list security futures for trading in the future. The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 4 to the filing but is not attached to the publication of this notice.
In its filing with the Commission, CFE 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. CFE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Policy and Procedure III (Resolution of Error Trades) of the Policies and Procedures section of the CFE Rulebook includes a section which allows for the busting or adjusting of a Block Trade or the CFE contract leg of an ECRP transaction that is reported to CFE with a mistake, inaccuracy, or error. Specifically, Section G of Policy and Procedure III provides that CFE's Trade Desk is authorized to bust or adjust a Block Trade or the CFE contract leg of an ECRP transaction if both (i) there was a mistake, inaccuracy, or error in the information that was inputted into CFE's system for the Block Trade or the contract leg of the ECRP transaction and (ii) an Authorized Reporter for or party to the transaction notifies the Trade Desk of the mistake, inaccuracy, or error in a form and manner prescribed by the Exchange within thirty minutes from the time the transaction is reported in CFE market data. The proposed rule change extends the time period for the notification to the Trade Desk of such an error to 4:00 p.m. Chicago time of the business day of the transaction. The proposed rule change also makes clear that in order for the Trade Desk to bust or adjust a Block Trade or the CFE contract leg of an ECRP transaction under this provision, an Authorized Reporter or party on each side of the transaction must agree upon the mistake, inaccuracy, or error that occurred.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will benefit CFE's market and CFE market participants by reducing risk to market participants and by clarifying when the Trade Desk is authorized to bust or adjust a Block Trade or the CFE contract leg of an ECRP transaction that is reported to CFE with a mistake, inaccuracy, or error. If a Block Trade or ECRP transaction is reported with a mistake, inaccuracy, or error that is not corrected, the parties to the transaction will receive a position or price other than what they intended to receive. Holding a position that a market participant did not intend to assume causes that market participant to assume risk in holding that position and can impact the market if the market participant needs to liquidate the position. Allowing parties to a Block Trade or ECRP transaction that is reported with a mistake, inaccuracy, or error additional time to realize that an error has occurred in the reporting of the transaction and to have the Trade Desk correct that error reduces the possibility of these scenarios. Additionally, the clarification that an Authorized Reporter or party on each side of the transaction must agree upon the mistake, inaccuracy, or error that occurred adds clarity that one side is not able to unilaterally get out of a transaction when the other side does not agree that that a mistake, inaccuracy, or error occurred. To the extent that parties have a dispute in this regard, they may seek to resolve it in an appropriate manner between themselves, including through the arbitration provisions of Chapter 8 of CFE's rules.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
• To foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, and
• to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
When a Block Trade or ECRP transaction is reported in error and cannot be busted or adjusted, the parties to the transaction can incur risk by becoming party to a transaction that is different than what the parties intended and because they then need to determine how to remediate the issue. CFE believes that the proposed rule change reduces this risk by extending the time period during which these errors may be identified and corrected while also balancing the need for CFE to timely receive information required to report transactions for clearing. CFE believes that the proposed rule change provides guidance to market participants regarding the parameters under which CFE's Trade Desk is able to address reporting errors involving Block Trade and ECRP transactions and improves the functioning and efficiency of CFE's reporting mechanism for these transactions by broadening the ability of the Trade Desk to address these types of reporting errors. The proposed rule change also makes clear to market participants that an Authorized Reporter
CFE 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, in that the proposed rule change will contribute to reducing market risk by enhancing the ability of the Exchange to correct transaction reporting errors. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that the rule amendments included in the proposed rule change would apply equally to all CFE market participants.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change will become operative on November 15, 2018. At any time within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the proposed rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC, may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the proposed rule change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the 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.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CFE-2018-002, and should be submitted on or before December 7, 2018.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend General 8 of the Exchange's Rules, as described below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend General 8 of its Rules, which govern the provision by the Exchange of colocation, connectivity, and direct connectivity
The Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges offer colocation, connectivity, and direct connectivity services and related products to their customers on a shared basis, meaning that a customer may utilize these products and services to gain access to any or all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to which they are otherwise entitled to receive access under the Rules. The Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges only charge customers once for these shared products and services, even to the extent that customers use the products and services to connect to more than one of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. For example, a firm that is a member or member organization, as applicable, of all six Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges, and which co-locates its servers in the Nasdaq Data Center by purchasing a 10 GB fiber connection, cabinet space, cooling fans, and patch cables, only needs to purchase these products and services once to use them to connect to all six Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
Likewise, the Rules were intended to provide for connectivity to third-party services and market data feeds on a shared basis, meaning that a firm need only purchase a subscription to these services once, regardless of whether the firm is a member or member organization, as applicable, of multiple Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
Historically, the Exchange has billed customers on a shared basis for all of the products and services currently set forth in General 8. Presently, however, only certain provisions of General 8 state this fact expressly. That is, provisions in General 8 pertaining to connectivity to the Exchange, direct circuit connectivity to the Exchange, and point-of-presence connectivity to the Exchange, each state that they include connectivity to the other markets of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. However, other provisions in General 8—such as cabinets, cabinet power, fiber and wireless connectivity to market data feeds, and fiber and wireless connectivity to third party services—do not contain such language.
Notwithstanding the absence of express language in these provisions of General 8, the Exchange believes that it is or should be apparent that a firm need only pay once to purchase products and services—like server cabinets, power supplies, and cables—that the firm will use to connect to multiple Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges or to connect to third party services or market data feeds. Indeed, the Exchange is aware of no actual customer confusion on this issue. Nevertheless, the Exchange believes that the existing Rules would benefit from clarification so as to avoid the potential for any confusion in the future.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend General 8 by doing the following: (1) Deleting the existing selective references therein to shared connectivity services; and (2) replacing selective references with the following language, which will serve as a general preface to General 8:
The connectivity products and services that this Rule describes are shared among all of the Nasdaq, Inc. exchanges (The Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq PHLX, LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, and Nasdaq GEMX, LLC). Fees for these products and services are also the same among all of the Nasdaq, Inc. exchanges. As such, a firm need only purchase the products and services listed below from any Nasdaq, Inc. exchange once to connect to any and all of the Nasdaq, Inc. exchanges to which it is otherwise entitled to connect, or to connect to third party market data feeds or services. For example, if a firm purchases connectivity to one Nasdaq, Inc. exchange and then subsequently qualifies to connect to a second Nasdaq, Inc. exchange, then the firm may utilize its existing services for connecting to the first exchange to also connect to the second exchange, without incurring an additional charge.
In addition to adding this preface, the Exchange also proposes several other non-substantive amendments to General 8 to correct technical errors and to harmonize it with parallel provisions set forth in the rules of the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. These changes will reconcile minor, non-substantive differences in the phrasing and placement of text between the Exchange's General 8 and the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges' Sections 8. The amendments will also remove certain references to the name “Nasdaq” or replace it with general references to “the Exchange.” Finally, the amendments will replace a specific reference in General 8, Section 1(b) to millimeter or microwave wireless subscriptions under Section 7015(g)(1) with a general reference to “any other provision of these Rules that provides for such subscriptions, as may exist, from time to time.” The intended result of the proposed changes—along with similar changes that the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges plan to propose—will be to generalize General 8 and render it completely identical across all six Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is equitable for the Exchange and the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to collectively charge a firm only once for the products and services set forth in General 8 because the same instance of such products and services may be used by the firm to connect to any or all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to which it is otherwise entitled to connect. Said otherwise, the Exchange does not believe that it would be fair for the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to each charge separate fees to a firm to, say, rent the same cabinet space in the same data center or to purchase the same wires to connect its servers to the market data feed. Moreover, the practice of charging a firm once for products and services
Meanwhile, the Exchange believes that it is just and equitable, and in the interests of the public and investors, for the Exchange to amend General 8 to clarify the existing practice of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to charge firms once to purchase shared products and services, and to codify that practice where it is not stated expressly in the Rule. Although the Exchange believes that such codification and clarification of General 8 are not necessary in this instance—given that it should be (and in the Exchange's experience, it is) apparent to firms that each of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges will not charge them more than once to, say, rent the same cabinet space or to purchase the same wires or power supplies—the Exchange believes, nevertheless, that the public and investors will benefit from increased clarity to General 8. Even if the proposal is not needed to dispel any actual confusion about the Rules, it will help to limit any potential confusion in the future.
The Exchange also believes that it is just and equitable, and in the interests of the public and investors, to harmonize the language of General 8 among all six of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. Given that General 8 in each of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges' rulebooks sets forth the same products, services, and associated fees that are assessed on a shared basis, the language of General 8 should be uniform across these Exchanges to avoid any confusion about unintended disparities. The proposal makes minor, non-substantive changes to accomplish this harmonization, which include removing cross-references and names that are idiosyncratic to this Exchange and are not common among all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that its proposals to amend General 8 are non-controversial because they merely codify and clarify the Exchange's existing interpretation of General 8, serve the interests of the public and investors in promoting a more clear and transparent Rulebook that is harmonized with the shared rules of the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges, and because the proposals will not impact competition or limit access to or availability of the Exchange or its systems.
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 proposals merely codify and clarify existing practice of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to collectively charge a customer only once to connect to any or all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges of which it is a member and to connect to third party services. The proposals also harmonize Section 8 with corresponding provisions of the rulebooks of the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
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.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
The privacy notice and opt out notice provisions of Regulation S-P (the “Rule”) implement the privacy notice and opt out notice requirements of Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”), which include the requirement that, at the time of establishing a customer relationship with a consumer and not less than annually during the continuation of such relationship, a financial institution shall provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure to such consumer of such financial institution's policies and practices with respect to disclosing nonpublic personal information to affiliates and nonaffiliated third parties (“privacy notice”). Title V of the GLBA also provides that, unless an exception applies, a financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information of a consumer to a nonaffiliated third party unless the financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer that such information may be disclosed to such third party; the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party; and the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option (“opt out notice”). The Rule applies to broker-dealers, investment advisers registered with the Commission, and investment companies (“covered entities”).
Commission staff estimates that, as of March 31, 2018, the Rule's information collection burden applies to approximately 20,465 covered entities (approximately 3,857 broker-dealers, 12,643 investment advisers registered with the Commission, and 3,965 investment companies). In view of (a) the minimal recordkeeping burden imposed by the Rule (since the Rule has no recordkeeping requirement and records relating to customer communications already must be made and retained pursuant to other SEC rules); (b) the summary fashion in which information must be provided to customers in the privacy and opt out notices required by the Rule (the model privacy form adopted by the SEC and the other agencies in 2009, designed to serve as both a privacy notice and an opt out notice, is only two pages); (c) the availability to covered entities of the model privacy form and online model privacy form builder; and (d) the experience of covered entities' staff with the notices, SEC staff estimates that covered entities will each spend an average of approximately 12 hours per year complying with the Rule, for a total of approximately 245,580 annual burden-hours (12 × 20,465 = 245,580). SEC staff understands that the vast majority of covered entities deliver their privacy and opt out notices with other communications such as account opening documents and account statements. Because the other communications are already delivered to consumers, adding a brief privacy and opt out notice should not result in added costs for processing or for postage and materials. Also, privacy and opt out notices may be delivered electronically to consumers who have agreed to electronic communications, which further reduces the costs of delivery. Because SEC staff assumes that most paper copies of privacy and opt out notices are combined with other required mailings, the burden-hour estimates above are based on resources required to integrate the privacy and opt notices into another mailing, rather than on the resources required to create and send a separate mailing. SEC staff estimates that, of the estimated 12 annual burden-hours incurred, approximately 8 hours would be spent by administrative assistants at an hourly rate of $82, and approximately 4 hours would be spent by internal counsel at an hourly rate of $422, for a total annualized internal cost of compliance of $2,344 for each of the covered entities (8 × $82 = $656; 4 × $422 = $1,688; $656 + $1,688 = $2,344). Hourly cost of compliance estimates for administrative assistant time are derived from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association's
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
Rule 17Ad-13 requires an annual study and evaluation of internal accounting controls under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
Approximately 100 independent, professional transfer agents must file the independent accountant's report annually. We estimate that the annual internal time burden for each transfer agent to comply with Rule 17Ad-13 by submitting the report prepared by the independent accountant to the Commission is minimal. The time required for the independent accountant to prepare the accountant's report varies with each transfer agent depending on the size and nature of the transfer agent's operations. The Commission estimates that, on average, each report can be completed by the independent accountant in 120 hours, resulting in a total of 12,000 external hours annually (120 hours × 100 reports). The burden was estimated using Commission review of filed Rule 17Ad-13 reports. The Commission estimates that, on average, 120 hours are needed to perform the study, prepare the report, and retain the required records on an annual basis. Assuming an average hourly rate of an independent accountant of $60, the average total annual cost of the report is $7,200. The total annual cost for the approximate 100 respondents is approximately $720,000.
The retention period for the recordkeeping requirement under Rule 17Ad-13 is three years following the date of a report prepared pursuant to the rule. The recordkeeping requirement under Rule 17Ad-13 is mandatory to assist the Commission and other regulatory agencies with monitoring transfer agents and ensuring compliance with the rule. This rule does not involve the collection of confidential information.
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:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend General 8 of the Exchange's Rules, as described below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend General 8 of its Rules, which govern the provision by the Exchange of colocation, connectivity, and direct connectivity services and related products, and which set forth the fees that the Exchange charges for those products and services, to: (1) Clarify that all of the products and services set forth in General 8 are shared among the Nasdaq Inc. affiliated exchanges—The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq PHLX LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, and Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (collectively, the “Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges”)—meaning that a firm need only purchase these products and services once to be able to use them to connect to all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to which the firm is otherwise entitled to connect, and to receive the third party services and market data feeds that it is otherwise entitled to receive; and (2) make other non-substantive changes that will further the objective of harmonizing General 8 with parallel rules that exist among the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
The Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges offer colocation, connectivity, and direct connectivity services and related products to their customers on a shared basis, meaning that a customer may utilize these products and services to gain access to any or all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to which they are otherwise entitled to receive access under the Rules. The Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges only charge customers once for these shared products and services, even to the extent that customers use the products and services to connect to more than one of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. For example, a firm that is a member or member organization, as applicable, of all six Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges, and which co-locates its servers in the Nasdaq Data Center by purchasing a 10 GB fiber connection, cabinet space, cooling fans, and patch cables, only needs to purchase these products and services once to use them to connect to all six Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
Likewise, the Rules were intended to provide for connectivity to third-party services and market data feeds on a shared basis, meaning that a firm need only purchase a subscription to these services once, regardless of whether the firm is a member or member organization, as applicable, of multiple Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
Historically, the Exchange has billed customers on a shared basis for all of the products and services currently set forth in General 8. Presently, however, only certain provisions of General 8 state this fact expressly. That is, provisions in General 8 pertaining to connectivity to the Exchange, direct circuit connectivity to the Exchange, and point-of-presence connectivity to the Exchange, each state that they include connectivity to the other markets of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. However, other provisions in General 8—such as cabinets, cabinet power, fiber and wireless connectivity to market data feeds, and fiber and wireless connectivity to third party services—do not contain such language.
Notwithstanding the absence of express language in these provisions of General 8, the Exchange believes that it is or should be apparent that a firm need only pay once to purchase products and services—like server cabinets, power supplies, and cables—that the firm will use to connect to multiple Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges or to connect to third party services or market data feeds. Indeed, the Exchange is aware of no actual customer confusion on this issue. Nevertheless, the Exchange believes that the existing Rules would benefit from clarification so as to avoid the potential for any confusion in the future.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend General 8 by doing the following: (1) Deleting the existing selective references therein to shared connectivity services; and (2) replacing selective references with the following language, which will serve as a general preface to General 8:
The connectivity products and services that this Rule describes are shared among all of the Nasdaq, Inc. exchanges (The Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq PHLX, LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, and Nasdaq GEMX, LLC). Fees for these products and services are also the same among all of the Nasdaq, Inc. exchanges. As such, a firm need only purchase the products and services listed below from any Nasdaq, Inc. exchange once to connect to any and all of the Nasdaq, Inc. exchanges to which it is otherwise entitled to connect, or to connect to third party market data feeds or services. For example, if a firm purchases connectivity to one Nasdaq, Inc. exchange and then subsequently qualifies to connect to a second Nasdaq, Inc. exchange, then the firm may utilize its existing services for connecting to the first exchange to also connect to the second exchange, without incurring an additional charge.
In addition to adding this preface, the Exchange also proposes several other non-substantive amendments to General 8 to correct technical errors and to harmonize it with parallel provisions set forth in the rules of the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. These changes will reconcile minor, non-substantive differences in the phrasing and placement of text between the Exchange's General 8 and the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges' Sections 8. The amendments will also remove certain references to the name “Nasdaq BX” or replace it with general references to “the Exchange.” Finally, the amendments will replace a specific reference in General 8, Section 1(b) to millimeter or microwave wireless subscriptions under Equity 7, Section 115 with a general reference to “any other provision of these Rules that provides for such subscriptions, as may exist, from time to time.” The intended result of the proposed changes—along with similar changes that the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges plan to propose—will be to generalize General 8 and render it completely identical across all six Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is equitable for the Exchange and the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to collectively charge a firm only once for the products and services set forth in General 8 because the same instance of such products and services may be used by the firm to connect to any or all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to which it is
Meanwhile, the Exchange believes that it is just and equitable, and in the interests of the public and investors, for the Exchange to amend General 8 to clarify the existing practice of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to charge firms once to purchase shared products and services, and to codify that practice where it is not stated expressly in the Rule. Although the Exchange believes that such codification and clarification of General 8 are not necessary in this instance—given that it should be (and in the Exchange's experience, it is) apparent to firms that each of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges will not charge them more than once to, say, rent the same cabinet space or to purchase the same wires or power supplies—the Exchange believes, nevertheless, that the public and investors will benefit from increased clarity to General 8. Even if the proposal is not needed to dispel any actual confusion about the Rules, it will help to limit any potential confusion in the future.
The Exchange also believes that it is just and equitable, and in the interests of the public and investors, to completely harmonize the language of General 8 among all six of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. Given that General 8 in each of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges' rulebooks sets forth the same products, services, and associated fees that are assessed on a shared basis, the language of General 8 should be uniform across these Exchanges avoid any confusion about unintended disparities. The proposal makes minor, non-substantive changes to accomplish this harmonization, which include removing cross-references and names that are idiosyncratic to this Exchange and are not common among all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that its proposals to amend General 8 are non-controversial because they merely codify and clarify the Exchange's existing interpretation of General 8, serve the interests of the public and investors in promoting a more clear and transparent Rulebook that is harmonized with the shared rules of the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges, and because the proposals will not impact competition or limit access to or availability of the Exchange or its systems.
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 proposals merely codify and clarify existing practice of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to collectively charge a customer only once to connect to any or all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges of which it is a member and to connect to third party services. The proposals also harmonize Section 8 with corresponding provisions of the rulebooks of the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
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 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend General 8 of the Exchange's Rules, as described below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend General 8 of its Rules, which govern the provision by the Exchange of colocation, connectivity, and direct connectivity services and related products, and which set forth the fees that the Exchange charges for those products and services, to: (1) Clarify that all of the products and services set forth in General 8 are shared among the Nasdaq Inc. affiliated exchanges—The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq PHLX LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, and Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (collectively, the “Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges”)—meaning that a firm need only purchase these products and services once to be able to use them to connect to all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to which the firm is otherwise entitled to connect, and to receive the third party services and market data feeds that it is otherwise entitled to receive; and (2) make other non-substantive changes that will further the objective of harmonizing General 8 with parallel rules that exist among the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
The Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges offer colocation, connectivity, and direct connectivity services and related products to their customers on a shared basis, meaning that a customer may utilize these products and services to gain access to any or all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to which they are otherwise entitled to receive access under the Rules. The Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges only charge customers once for these shared products and services, even to the extent that customers use the products and services to connect to more than one of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. For example, a firm that is a member or member organization, as applicable, of all six Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges, and which co-locates its servers in the Nasdaq Data Center by purchasing a 10 GB fiber connection, cabinet space, cooling fans, and patch cables, only needs to purchase these products and services once to use them to connect to all six Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
Likewise, the Rules were intended to provide for connectivity to third-party services and market data feeds on a shared basis, meaning that a firm need only purchase a subscription to these services once, regardless of whether the firm is a member or member organization, as applicable, of multiple Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
Historically, the Exchange has billed customers on a shared basis for all of the products and services currently set forth in General 8. Presently, however, only certain provisions of General 8 state this fact expressly. That is, provisions in General 8 pertaining to connectivity to the Exchange, direct circuit connectivity to the Exchange, and point-of-presence connectivity to the Exchange, each state that they include connectivity to the other markets of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. However, other provisions in General 8—such as cabinets, cabinet power, fiber and wireless connectivity to market data feeds, and fiber and wireless connectivity to third party services—do not contain such language.
Notwithstanding the absence of express language in these provisions of General 8, the Exchange believes that it is or should be apparent that a firm need only pay once to purchase products and services—like server cabinets, power supplies, and cables—that the firm will use to connect to multiple Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges or to connect to third party services or market data feeds. Indeed, the Exchange is aware of no actual
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend General 8 by doing the following: (1) Deleting the existing selective references therein to shared connectivity services; and (2) replacing selective references with the following language, which will serve as a general preface to General 8:
The connectivity products and services that this Rule describes are shared among all of the Nasdaq, Inc. exchanges (The Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq PHLX, LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, and Nasdaq GEMX, LLC). Fees for these products and services are also the same among all of the Nasdaq, Inc. exchanges. As such, a firm need only purchase the products and services listed below from any Nasdaq, Inc. exchange once to connect to any and all of the Nasdaq, Inc. exchanges to which it is otherwise entitled to connect, or to connect to third party market data feeds or services. For example, if a firm purchases connectivity to one Nasdaq, Inc. exchange and then subsequently qualifies to connect to a second Nasdaq, Inc. exchange, then the firm may utilize its existing services for connecting to the first exchange to also connect to the second exchange, without incurring an additional charge.
In addition to adding this preface, the Exchange also proposes several other non-substantive amendments to General 8 to correct technical errors and to harmonize it with parallel provisions set forth in the rules of the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. These changes will reconcile minor, non-substantive differences in the phrasing and placement of text between the Exchange's General 8 and the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges' Sections 8. The amendments will also remove certain references to the name “Nasdaq” or replace it with general references to “the Exchange.” Finally, the amendments will amend General 8, Section 1(b), which provides for discounted pricing for having multiple millimeter or microwave wireless subscriptions, to state that such pricing applies to subscriptions under General 8, Section 1(b) “and/or any other provision of these Rules that provides for such subscriptions, as may exist, from time to time.” The intended result of the proposed changes—along with similar changes that the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges plan to propose—will be to generalize General 8 and render it completely identical across all six Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. (The Exchange notes that The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC and Nasdaq BX, Inc. offer wireless subscriptions under both General 8, Section 1(b) and Rule 7015/Equity 7, Section 115 of their respective rulebooks.)
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is equitable for the Exchange and the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to collectively charge a firm only once for the products and services set forth in General 8 because the same instance of such products and services may be used by the firm to connect to any or all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to which it is otherwise entitled to connect. Said otherwise, the Exchange does not believe that it would be fair for the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to each charge separate fees to a firm to, say, rent the same cabinet space in the same data center or to purchase the same wires to connect its servers to the market data feed. Moreover, the practice of charging a firm once for products and services with shared applicability among the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges is not unfairly discriminatory because each of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges makes the products and services that are set forth in General 8 of their respective rulebooks available to all similarly situated members at the same prices.
Meanwhile, the Exchange believes that it is just and equitable, and in the interests of the public and investors, for the Exchange to amend General 8 to clarify the existing practice of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to charge firms once to purchase shared products and services, and to codify that practice where it is not stated expressly in the Rule. Although the Exchange believes that such codification and clarification of General 8 are not necessary in this instance—given that it should be (and in the Exchange's experience, it is) apparent to firms that each of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges will not charge them more than once to, say, rent the same cabinet space or to purchase the same wires or power supplies—the Exchange believes, nevertheless, that the public and investors will benefit from increased clarity to General 8. Even if the proposal is not needed to dispel any actual confusion about the Rules, it will help to limit any potential confusion in the future.
The Exchange also believes that it is just and equitable, and in the interests of the public and investors, to harmonize the language of General 8 among all six of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. Given that General 8 in each of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges' rulebooks sets forth the same products, services, and associated fees that are assessed on a shared basis, the language of General 8 should be uniform across these Exchanges to avoid any confusion about unintended disparities. The proposal makes minor, non-substantive changes to accomplish this harmonization, which include removing references that are idiosyncratic to this Exchange and are not common among all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that its proposals to amend General 8 are non-controversial because they merely codify and clarify the Exchange's existing interpretation of General 8, serve the interests of the public and investors in promoting a more clear and transparent Rulebook that is harmonized with the shared rules of the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges, and because the proposals will not impact competition or limit access to or availability of the Exchange or its systems.
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 proposals merely codify and clarify existing practice of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to collectively charge a customer only once to connect to any or all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges of which it is a member and to connect to third party services. The proposals also harmonize Section 8 with corresponding provisions of the
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 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend General 8 of the Exchange's Rules, as described below.
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
The Exchange proposes to amend General 8 of its Rules, which govern the provision by the Exchange of colocation, connectivity, and direct connectivity services and related products, and which set forth the fees that the Exchange charges for those products and services, to: (1) Clarify that all of the products and services set forth in General 8 are shared among the Nasdaq Inc. affiliated exchanges—The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq PHLX LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, and Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (collectively, the “Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges”)—meaning that a firm need only purchase these products and services once to be able to use them to connect to all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to which the firm is otherwise entitled to connect, and to receive the third party services and market data feeds that it is otherwise entitled to receive; and (2) make other non-substantive changes that will further the objective of harmonizing General 8 with parallel rules that exist among the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
The Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges offer colocation, connectivity, and direct connectivity services and related products to their customers on a shared basis, meaning that a customer may utilize these products and services to gain access to any or all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to which they are otherwise entitled to receive access under the Rules. The Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges only charge customers once for these shared products and services, even to the extent that customers use the products and services to connect to more than one of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. For example, a firm that is a member or member organization, as applicable, of all six Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges, and which co-locates its servers in the Nasdaq Data Center by purchasing a 10 GB fiber connection, cabinet space, cooling fans, and patch cables, only needs to purchase these products and services once to use them to connect to all six Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
Likewise, the Rules were intended to provide for connectivity to third-party services and market data feeds on a shared basis, meaning that a firm need only purchase a subscription to these services once, regardless of whether the firm is a member or member organization, as applicable, of multiple Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
Historically, the Exchange has billed customers on a shared basis for all of the products and services currently set forth in General 8. Presently, however, only certain provisions of General 8 state this fact expressly. That is, provisions in General 8 pertaining to connectivity to the Exchange, direct circuit connectivity to the Exchange, and point-of-presence connectivity to the Exchange, each state that they include connectivity to the other markets of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. However, other provisions in General 8—such as cabinets, cabinet power, fiber and wireless connectivity to market data feeds, and fiber and wireless connectivity to third party services—do not contain such language.
Notwithstanding the absence of express language in these provisions of General 8, the Exchange believes that it is or should be apparent that a firm need only pay once to purchase products and services—like server cabinets, power supplies, and cables—that the firm will use to connect to multiple Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges or to connect to third party services or market data feeds. Indeed, the Exchange is aware of no actual customer confusion on this issue. Nevertheless, the Exchange believes that the existing Rules would benefit from clarification so as to avoid the potential for any confusion in the future.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend General 8 by doing the following: (1) Deleting the existing selective references therein to shared connectivity services; and (2) replacing selective references with the following language, which will serve as a general preface to General 8:
The connectivity products and services that this Rule describes are shared among all of the Nasdaq, Inc. exchanges (The Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq PHLX, LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, and Nasdaq GEMX, LLC). Fees for these products and services are also the same among all of the Nasdaq, Inc. exchanges. As such, a firm need only purchase the products and services listed below from any Nasdaq, Inc. exchange once to connect to any and all of the Nasdaq, Inc. exchanges to which it is otherwise entitled to connect, or to connect to third party market data feeds or services. For example, if a firm purchases connectivity to one Nasdaq, Inc. exchange and then subsequently qualifies to connect to a second Nasdaq, Inc. exchange, then the firm may utilize its existing services for connecting to the first exchange to also connect to the second exchange, without incurring an additional charge.
In addition to adding this preface, the Exchange also proposes several other non-substantive amendments to General 8 to correct technical errors and to harmonize it with parallel provisions set forth in the rules of the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. These changes will reconcile minor, non-substantive differences in the phrasing and placement of text between the Exchange's General 8 and the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges' Sections 8. The amendments will also remove certain references to the names “Phlx” or “Nasdaq PHLX” or replace them with general references to “the Exchange.” Finally, the amendments will amend General 8, Section 1(b), which provides for discounted pricing for having multiple millimeter or microwave wireless subscriptions, to state that such pricing applies to subscriptions under General 8, Section 1(b) “and/or any other provision of these Rules that provides for such subscriptions, as may exist, from time to time.” The intended result of the proposed changes—along with similar changes that the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges plan to propose—will be to generalize General 8 and render it completely identical across all six Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. (The Exchange notes that The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC and Nasdaq BX, Inc. offer wireless subscriptions under both General 8, Section 1(b) and Rule 7015/Equity 7, Section 115 of their respective rulebooks.)
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is equitable for the Exchange and the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to collectively charge a firm only once for the products and services set forth in General 8 because the same instance of such products and services may be used by the firm to connect to any or all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to which it is otherwise entitled to connect. Said otherwise, the Exchange does not believe that it would be fair for the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to each charge separate fees to a firm to, say, rent the same cabinet space in the same data center or to purchase the same wires to connect its servers to the market data feed. Moreover, the practice of charging a firm once for products and services with shared applicability among the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges is not unfairly discriminatory because each of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges makes the products and services that are set forth in General 8 of their respective rulebooks available to all similarly situated members at the same prices.
Meanwhile, the Exchange believes that it is just and equitable, and in the interests of the public and investors, for the Exchange to amend General 8 to clarify the existing practice of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to charge firms once to purchase shared products and services, and to codify that practice where it is not stated expressly in the Rule. Although the Exchange believes that such codification and clarification of General 8 are not necessary in this instance—given that it should be (and in the Exchange's experience, it is) apparent to firms that each of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges will not charge them more than once to, say, rent the same cabinet space or to purchase the same wires or power supplies—the Exchange believes, nevertheless, that the public and investors will benefit from increased clarity to General 8. Even if the proposal is not needed to dispel any actual confusion about the Rules, it will help to limit any potential confusion in the future.
The Exchange also believes that it is just and equitable, and in the interests of the public and investors, to harmonize the language of General 8 among all six of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. Given that General 8 in each of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges' rulebooks sets forth the same products, services, and associated fees that are assessed on a shared basis, the language of General 8 should be uniform across these Exchanges avoid any confusion about unintended disparities. The proposal makes minor, non-substantive changes to accomplish this harmonization, which include removing references that are idiosyncratic to this Exchange and are not common among all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that its proposals to amend General 8 are non-controversial because they merely codify and clarify the Exchange's existing interpretation of General 8, serve the interests of the public and investors in promoting a more clear and transparent Rulebook that is harmonized with the shared rules of the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges, and because the proposals will not impact competition or limit access to or availability of the Exchange or its systems.
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 proposals merely codify and clarify existing practice of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to collectively charge a customer only once to connect to any or all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges of which it is a member and to connect to third party services. The proposals also harmonize Section 8 with corresponding provisions of the rulebooks of the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
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.
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.
The federal securities laws generally prohibit an issuer, underwriter, or dealer from delivering a security for sale unless a prospectus meeting certain requirements accompanies or precedes the security. Rule 154 (17 CFR 230.154) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a) (the “Securities Act”) permits, under certain circumstances, delivery of a single prospectus to investors who purchase securities from the same issuer and share the same address (“householding”) to satisfy the applicable prospectus delivery requirements.
Under rule 154, a prospectus is considered delivered to all investors at a shared address, for purposes of the federal securities laws, if the person relying on the rule delivers the prospectus to the shared address, addresses the prospectus to the investors as a group or to each of the investors individually, and the investors consent to the delivery of a single prospectus. The rule applies to prospectuses and prospectus supplements. Currently, the rule permits householding of all prospectuses by an issuer, underwriter, or dealer relying on the rule if, in addition to the other conditions set forth in the rule, the issuer, underwriter, or dealer has obtained from each investor written or implied consent to householding.
The rule allows issuers, underwriters, or dealers to household prospectuses if certain conditions are met. Among the conditions with which a person relying on the rule must comply are providing notice to each investor that only one prospectus will be sent to the household and, in the case of issuers that are mutual funds, providing to each investor who consents to householding an annual explanation of the right to revoke consent to the delivery of a single prospectus to multiple investors sharing an address. The purpose of the notice and annual explanation requirements of the rule is to ensure that investors who wish to receive individual copies of prospectuses are able to do so.
Although rule 154 is not limited to mutual funds, the Commission believes that it is used mainly by mutual funds and by broker-dealers that deliver mutual fund prospectuses. The Commission is unable to estimate the number of issuers other than mutual funds that rely on the rule.
The Commission estimates that, as of August 2018, there are approximately 1,590 mutual funds, approximately 400 of which engage in direct marketing and therefore deliver their own prospectuses. Of the approximately 400 mutual funds that engage in direct marketing, the Commission estimates that approximately half of these mutual funds (200)(i) do not send the implied consent notice requirement because
The Commission estimates that there are approximately 175 broker-dealers that carry customer accounts for the remaining mutual funds and therefore may be required to deliver mutual fund prospectuses. The Commission estimates that each affected broker-dealer will spend, on average, 20 hours complying with the notice requirement of the rule, for a total of 3,500 hours. Therefore, the total number of respondents for rule 154 is 475 (300
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. Responses to the collections of information will not be kept confidential. The rule does not require these records be retained for any specific period of time. 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 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17f-1(c) requires approximately 15,500 entities in the securities industry to report lost, stolen, missing, or counterfeit securities certificates to the Commission or its designee, to a registered transfer agent for the issue, and, when criminal activity is suspected, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Such entities are required to use Form X-17F-1A to make such reports. Filing these reports fulfills a statutory requirement that reporting institutions report and inquire about missing, lost, counterfeit, or stolen securities. Since these reports are compiled in a central database, the rule facilitates reporting institutions to access the database that stores information for the Lost and Stolen Securities Program.
We estimate that 10,100 reporting institutions will report that securities certificates are either missing, lost, counterfeit, or stolen annually and that each reporting institution will submit this report 30 times each year. The staff estimates that the average amount of time necessary to comply with Rule 17f-1(c) and Form X17F-1A is five minutes per submission. The total burden is 25,250 hours annually for the entire industry (10,100 times 30 times 5 divided by 60).
Rule 17f-1(c) is a reporting rule and does not specify a retention period. The rule requires an incident-based reporting requirement by the reporting institutions when securities certificates are discovered to be missing, lost, counterfeit, or stolen. Registering under Rule 17f-1(c) is mandatory to obtain the benefit of a central database that stores information about missing, lost, counterfeit, or stolen securities for the Lost and Stolen Securities Program. Reporting institutions required to register under Rule 17f-1(c) will not be kept confidential; however, the Lost and Stolen Securities Program database will be kept confidential.
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:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend General 8 of the Exchange's Rules, as described below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend General 8 of its Rules, which govern the provision by the Exchange of colocation, connectivity, and direct connectivity services and related products, and which set forth the fees that the Exchange charges for those products and services, to: (1) Clarify that all of the products and services set forth in General 8 are shared among the Nasdaq Inc. affiliated exchanges—The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq PHLX LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, and Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (collectively, the “Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges”)—meaning that a firm need only purchase these products and services once to be able to use them to connect to all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to which the firm is otherwise entitled to connect, and to receive the third party services and market data feeds that it is otherwise entitled to receive; and (2) make other non-substantive changes that will further the objective of harmonizing General 8 with parallel rules that exist among the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
The Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges offer colocation, connectivity, and direct connectivity services and related products to their customers on a shared basis, meaning that a customer may utilize these products and services to gain access to any or all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to which they are otherwise entitled to receive access under the Rules. The Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges only charge customers once for these shared products and services, even to the extent that customers use the products and services to connect to more than one of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. For example, a firm that is a member or member organization, as applicable, of all six Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges, and which co-locates its servers in the Nasdaq Data Center by purchasing a 10 GB fiber connection, cabinet space, cooling fans, and patch cables, only needs to purchase these products and services once to use them to connect to all six Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
Likewise, the Rules were intended to provide for connectivity to third-party services and market data feeds on a shared basis, meaning that a firm need only purchase a subscription to these services once, regardless of whether the firm is a member or member organization, as applicable, of multiple Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
Historically, the Exchange has billed customers on a shared basis for all of the products and services currently set forth in General 8. Presently, however, only certain provisions of General 8 state this fact expressly. That is, provisions in General 8 pertaining to connectivity to the Exchange, direct circuit connectivity to the Exchange, and point-of-presence connectivity to the Exchange, each state that they include connectivity to the other markets of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. However, other provisions in General 8—such as cabinets, cabinet power, fiber and wireless connectivity to market data feeds, and fiber and wireless connectivity to third party services—do not contain such language.
Notwithstanding the absence of express language in these provisions of General 8, the Exchange believes that it is or should be apparent that a firm need only pay once to purchase products and services—like server cabinets, power supplies, and cables—that the firm will use to connect to multiple Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges or to connect to third party services or market data feeds. Indeed, the Exchange is aware of no actual customer confusion on this issue. Nevertheless, the Exchange believes that the existing Rules would benefit from clarification so as to avoid the potential for any confusion in the future.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend General 8 by doing the following: (1) Deleting the existing selective references therein to shared connectivity services; and (2) replacing selective references with the following language, which will serve as a general preface to General 8:
The connectivity products and services that this Rule describes are shared among all of the Nasdaq, Inc. exchanges (The Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq PHLX, LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, and Nasdaq GEMX, LLC). Fees for these products and services are also the same among all of the Nasdaq, Inc. exchanges. As such, a firm need only purchase the products and services listed below from any Nasdaq, Inc. exchange once to connect to any and all of the Nasdaq, Inc. exchanges to which it is otherwise entitled to connect, or to connect to third party market data feeds or services. For example, if a firm purchases connectivity to one Nasdaq, Inc. exchange and then subsequently qualifies to connect to a second Nasdaq, Inc. exchange, then the firm may utilize its existing services for connecting to the first exchange to also connect to the second exchange, without incurring an additional charge.
In addition to adding this preface, the Exchange also proposes several other non-substantive amendments to General 8 to correct technical errors and to harmonize it with parallel provisions set forth in the rules of the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. These changes will reconcile minor, non-substantive differences in the phrasing and placement of text between the Exchange's General 8 and the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges' Sections 8. The amendments will also remove certain references to the name “Nasdaq GEMX” or replace it with general references to “the Exchange.” Finally, the amendments will amend General 8, Section 1(b), which provides for discounted pricing for having multiple millimeter or microwave wireless subscriptions, to state that such pricing applies to subscriptions under General 8, Section 1(b) “and/or any other provision of these Rules that provides
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is equitable for the Exchange and the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to collectively charge a firm only once for the products and services set forth in General 8 because the same instance of such products and services may be used by the firm to connect to any or all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to which it is otherwise entitled to connect. Said otherwise, the Exchange does not believe that it would be fair for the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to each charge separate fees to a firm to, say, rent the same cabinet space in the same data center or to purchase the same wires to connect its servers to the market data feed. Moreover, the practice of charging a firm once for products and services with shared applicability among the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges is not unfairly discriminatory because each of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges makes the products and services that are set forth in General 8 of their respective rulebooks available to all similarly situated members at the same prices.
Meanwhile, the Exchange believes that it is just and equitable, and in the interests of the public and investors, for the Exchange to amend General 8 to clarify the existing practice of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to charge firms once to purchase shared products and services, and to codify that practice where it is not stated expressly in the Rule. Although the Exchange believes that such codification and clarification of General 8 are not necessary in this instance—given that it should be (and in the Exchange's experience, it is) apparent to firms that each of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges will not charge them more than once to, say, rent the same cabinet space or to purchase the same wires or power supplies—the Exchange believes, nevertheless, that the public and investors will benefit from increased clarity to General 8. Even if the proposal is not needed to dispel any actual confusion about the Rules, it will help to limit any potential confusion in the future.
The Exchange also believes that it is just and equitable, and in the interests of the public and investors, to harmonize the language of General 8 among all six of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. Given that General 8 in each of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges' rulebooks sets forth the same products, services, and associated fees that are assessed on a shared basis, the language of General 8 should be uniform across these Exchanges to avoid any confusion about unintended disparities. The proposal makes minor, non-substantive changes to accomplish this harmonization, which include removing references that are idiosyncratic to this Exchange and are not common among all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that its proposals to amend General 8 are non-controversial because they merely codify and clarify the Exchange's existing interpretation of General 8, serve the interests of the public and investors in promoting a more clear and transparent Rulebook that is harmonized with the shared rules of the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges, and because the proposals will not impact competition or limit access to or availability of the Exchange or its systems.
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 proposals merely codify and clarify existing practice of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to collectively charge a customer only once to connect to any or all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges of which it is a member and to connect to third party services. The proposals also harmonize Section 8 with corresponding provisions of the rulebooks of the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
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 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend various rules to reflect changes to The Nasdaq Options Market LLC (“NOM”) protocols.
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.
Nasdaq recently filed a rule change
The Prior Rule Change, which is effective but not yet operative, renamed the current OTTO to “QUO.” The proposed changes herein seek to rename that protocol accordingly within the
Chapter VI, Section 6(e), “Detection of Loss of Communication” describes the impact to NOM protocols in the event of a loss of a communication. The Exchange identifies the various protocols available on NOM within this rule. The Exchange proposes several amendments.
First, the Exchange proposes to replace references to the term “Participant” with “NOM Market Maker” within the current rule text where the protocol is only available to NOM Market Makers.
Second, the Exchange proposes to add the term “QUO” to Chapter VI, Section 6(e)(i)(A) which defines a “Heartbeat” to account for the renamed current OTTO protocol within the list. The existing reference to current OTTO would remain and such reference would now refer to the new OTTO protocol. No changes are necessary to the text because the operation of the two protocols are the same for purposes of this specific rule text.
Third, the Exchange notes that current OTTO is accounted for within NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 6(e). Specifically, Section 6(e)(iii) and current Section 6(e)(vi), which is proposed to be renumbered as Section 6(e)(viii), currently describe the current OTTO protocol. The Exchange is not amending this language because this language would be the same for the new OTTO protocol. To avoid confusion in marking the text, the Exchange proposes to allow this text to remain and simply replicate the text for the renamed QUO protocol. No changes are necessary to the existing OTTO text because the operation of the two protocols, as it relates to this specific text, is the same. The standards for disconnecting current OTTO, renamed “QUO” and new OTTO are identical. The Exchange therefore proposes a new Chapter VI, Section 6(e)(i)(D) to define QUO as the Exchange's System component through which NOM Market Makers communicate orders from the Client Application. Because the renamed QUO interface accepts orders submitted by NOM Market Makers, which are treated as quotes for purposes of quoting obligations, this interface is identified as an order entry interface. Chapter VI, Section 6(e)(i)(D), defining Client Application, is being re-lettered to Section 6(e)(i)(E). Also, the Exchange proposes a new Section 6(e)(iv) which provides,
When the QUO Port detects the loss of communication with a NOM Market Maker's Client Application because the Exchange's server does not receive a Heartbeat message for a certain time period (“nn” seconds), the Exchange will automatically logoff the NOM Market Maker's affected Client Application and if the NOM Market Maker has elected to have its orders cancelled pursuant to Chapter VI, Section 6(e)(viii) automatically cancel all open orders posted.
The Exchange also proposes to renumber subsequent sections and add a corresponding new section for QUO within Section 6(e)(viii) which provides,
The default time period (“nn” seconds) for QUO Ports shall be fifteen (15) seconds for the disconnect and, if elected, the removal of orders. If the NOM Market Maker elects to have its orders removed, in addition to the disconnect, the NOM Market Maker may determine another time period of “nn” seconds of no technical connectivity, as required in paragraph (iii) above, to trigger the disconnect and removal of orders and communicate that time to the Exchange. The period of “nn” seconds may be modified to a number between one hundred (100) milliseconds and 99,999 milliseconds for QUO Ports prior to each session of connectivity to the Exchange. This feature may be disabled for the removal of orders, however the NOM Market Maker will be disconnected.
(A) If the NOM Market Maker systemically changes the default number of “nn” seconds, that new setting shall be in effect throughout the current session of connectivity and will then default back to fifteen seconds. The NOM Market Maker may change the default setting systemically prior to each session of connectivity.
(B) If a time period is communicated to the Exchange by calling Exchange operations, the number of “nn” seconds selected by the NOM Market Maker shall persist for each subsequent session of connectivity until the NOM Market Maker either contacts Exchange operations and changes the setting or the NOM Market Maker systemically selects another time period prior to the next session of connectivity.
These sections will refer to the renamed QUO protocol separately from the new OTTO protocol. As noted above, the existing OTTO rule text would refer to the new OTTO and would have the same 15 second default time period as current OTTO, renamed “QUO.” The new section for QUO will represent that protocol going forward so that all NOM protocols are represented within the rule.
Fifth, the Exchange proposes to renumber Section 6(e)(vii) to Section 6(e)(ix) and add references to the renamed QUO protocol in this paragraph. The trigger for all protocols is described in this section. The current OTTO reference shall now refer to the new OTTO and renamed QUO is being added so all protocols are accounted for within the text.
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VI, Section 8, “Nasdaq Opening and Halt Cross,” at Section 8(a)(4), “Eligible Interest,” to reflect the addition of an order entry protocol. As explained above, the current OTTO was renamed “QUO” and a new “OTTO” protocol will be added to NOM. The Exchange proposes to add “OTTO” to the list of protocols that may submit orders, prior to the Nasdaq Opening Cross designated with a time-in-force of IOC will be rejected and shall not be considered eligible interest. The Exchange proposes to add “QUO” to the list of protocols that may submit orders that may be submitted as quotes prior to the Nasdaq Opening Cross, designated with a time-in-force of IOC that will remain in-force through the opening and would be cancelled immediately after the opening. The Exchange also proposes to add the words “quotes received via” before SQF to make clear that quotes are submitted into the SQF protocol.
Further, the Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VI, Section 8(a)(6), “Valid Width National Best Bid or Offer” or “Valid Width NBBO” to add QUO and remove OTTO to the list of protocols that may submit orders or quotes to account for the renaming of the current protocol. Today, the SQF protocol is a quoting protocol used by NOM Market Makers. QUO will permit orders to be entered, which would be treated as quotes for purposes of quoting obligations, which orders would be eligible for the Opening Process provided they are within a specified bid/ask differential as established and published by the Exchange. The new OTTO would be an order entry protocol only and therefore not eligible to be utilized to submit a Valid Width National Best Bid or Offer during the Opening Process.
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VI, Section 19, “Data Feeds and Trade Information” to amend “OTTO DROP” to “QUO DROP.” The same description would apply as this data
The Exchange proposes to add three new definitions to Chapter I, Section 1. These definitions are utilized in technical documents issued by the Exchange and will provide an ease of reference for understanding these terms. The Exchange proposes to define account number at Chapter I, Section 1(a)(69) as a number assigned to a Participant. Participants may have more than one account number. The Exchange proposes to define “badge” at Chapter I, Section 1(a)(70) as an account number, which may contain letters and/or numbers, assigned to NOM Market Makers. A NOM Market Maker account may be associated with multiple badges. Finally, the Exchange proposes to defined “mnemonic” at Chapter I, Section 1(a)(71) as an acronym comprised of letters and/or numbers assigned to Participants. A Participant account may be associated with multiple mnemonics.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VI, Section 18 to make various amendments as detailed below.
The Exchange proposes to amend the current rule text at Chapter VI, Section 18(a)(1) related to the Order Price Protection rule or “OPP.” First the Exchange proposes to add punctuation and OPP at the beginning of that sentence to conform the text to the remainder of the rule.
Second, the Exchange proposes to remove the example within Chapter VI, Section 18(a)(1)(B)(i) which states, “For example, if the Reference BBO on the offer side is $1.10, an order to buy options for more than $1.65 would be rejected. Similarly, if the Reference BBO on the bid side is $1.10, an order to sell options for less than $0.55 will be rejected.” The Exchange also proposes to remove the example within Chapter VI, Section 18(a)(1)(B)(ii) which states, “For example, if the Reference BBO on the offer side is $1.00, an order to buy options for more than $2.00 would be rejected. However, if the Reference BBO of the bid side of an incoming order to sell is less than or equal to $1.00, the OPP limits set forth above will result in all incoming sell orders being accepted regardless of their limit.” The Exchange notes that while the examples remain accurate, the Exchange proposes to remove the text to conform the rule text to other risk protections. The Exchange does not believe it is necessary to have these examples within the rule text.
Third, the Exchange proposes to state, with the introduction of “QUO” that OPP shall not apply to orders entered through QUO. Today, the Exchange does not offer OPP via current OTTO, which is being renamed “QUO.”
The Exchange proposes two changes to the Market Order Spread Protection rule at Chapter VI, Section 18(a)(2). First, NOM proposes to add the word “trading” before the word “halt” Section 18(a)(2) for consistency. In the OPP rule text halts are referred to as “trading halts.” This will avoid confusion as to the use of this term.
Second, the Exchange proposes to amend the Market Order Spread Protection Rule in Chapter VI, Section 18(a)(2) to permit NOM to establish different thresholds for one or more series or classes of options, which is the same as Phlx.
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VI, Section 18(c)(1) to make minor changes to capitalize the term “market maker” and remove the word “participant,” make plural the word “identifier,” and change the word “member” to “Participant.” These changes are intended to conform the language to the remainder of the risk protection rules. Further, the Exchange proposes to replace the phrase “Exchange account identifier or member firm identifier” with “account number or Participant identifier.” The Exchange defined “account number” herein and proposes that definition in place of “Exchange account identifier.” Also, for consistency, “member” is being replaced with “Participant” in this sentence as well.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend the title of Chapter VI, Section 18(c)(2) from “Automated Removal of Quotes” to “Quotation Adjustments” to conform the title across Nasdaq markets.
The Exchange proposes to implement the rule changes for QUO and OTTO at the same time that the Exchange announces SR-NASDAQ-2018-069 will be operative.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
With respect to the new OTTO protocol which was introduced with the Prior Rule Change, all NOM Participants will be able to utilize this protocol. The Exchange believes that applying the removal functionality specified within NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 6(e) for the new OTTO protocol is consistent with the Act because it prevents disruption in the marketplace by protecting market participants. Market participants utilizing new OTTO will have the option to either enable or disable the cancellation feature, thereby offering the same risk protections throughout the market to participants utilizing other protocols. Further, it is appropriate to offer this removal feature as optional to all market participants utilizing new OTTO, because unlike NOM Market Makers who are required to provide quotes in all products in which they are registered, market participants utilizing new OTTO do not bear the same magnitude of risk of potential erroneous or unintended executions. In addition, market participants utilizing new OTTO may desire their orders to remain on the order book despite a technical disconnect, so as not to miss any opportunities for execution of such orders while the OTTO port is disconnected. The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the Act to require other market participants to be disconnected because the Participant is otherwise not connected to the Exchange's System and the Participant simply needs to reconnect to commence submitting and cancelling orders.
The Exchange's proposal to reflect QUO, the renamed current OTTO protocol, within Chapter VI at Sections 6(e), 8 and 19 and permit the references to the current OTTO protocol to reflect the new OTTO protocol will account for all the protocols available on NOM within these Rules. Specifically, the Exchange's proposal will make clear that QUO will be available to NOM Market Makers and would be considered eligible interest during the Opening Process and which types of orders are eligible as Valid Width Quotes. Finally, the features available for disconnects and the availability of QUO DROP are being specified in this proposal. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because current OTTO is simply being renamed “QUO.” Renaming this protocol with its rules will make clear how QUO orders may be entered and cancelled by the System and avoid confusion for investors. With respect to the Opening Process described in NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 8, the Exchange's proposal to replace “OTTO” with “QUO” reflects the name change. Only quotes and in this case orders, which are treated as quotes for quoting obligations, may qualify for a Valid Width National Best Bid or Offer during the Opening Process. Also, adding QUO to the list of Eligible Interest brings greater clarity to market participants regarding the changes to the NOM protocols. The current OTTO references will reflect the new OTTO protocol with these changes. Finally, the change to Chapter VI, Section 19(b) simply accounts for the name change. The Exchange is not amending the proposed “QUO DROP” functionality.
With respect to not offering OPP for QUO, the Exchange believes it is consistent with the Act because unlike other market participants, Market Makers have sophisticated infrastructures as compared to other market participants and are able to manage their risk, particularly with respect to quoting, using tools that are not available to other market participants. Also, QUO is subject to the quote protections listed in Chapter VI, Section 18(c). Market Makers handle a large amount of risk when quoting and in addition to the risk protections required by the Exchange and utilize their own risk management parameters when entering orders, minimizing the likelihood of error. The Exchange believes that Market Makers, unlike other market participants, have the ability to manage their risk and are being offered two protocols to quote.
The Exchange's proposal to expand the Market Order Spread Protection permits the Exchange to establish different thresholds for one or more series or classes of options which is the same as Phlx. The Exchange desires this flexibility to allow it, the same as Phlx,
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 Exchange's proposal to adopt new definitions and amend the rule text for Anti-Internalization to conform the rule text to other risk protection rules and utilize a proposed new definition does not impose an undue burden on competition because the proposal brings transparency to the Exchange's rules.
The Exchange's proposal to add references to renamed QUO to Chapter VI, Sections 6(e), 8 and 19 will clarify the name change of the current OTTO protocol to renamed “QUO” and will also make clear that QUO is available only to NOM Market Makers. The Exchange's proposal to introduce the new OTTO protocol for purposes of the detection of loss of communication functionality does not impose an undue burden on competition because all market participants will be permitted to utilize OTTO to submit orders during the opening and will also be able to avail themselves of the protections offered by a loss of communication, similar to other protocols.
Finally, no Market Maker would receive OPP protection, however all Market Makers would receive the quote protections listed in Chapter VI, Section 18(c). The Exchange believes that unlike other market participants, Market Makers have sophisticated infrastructures as compared to other market participants and are able to manage their risk, particularly with respect to quoting, using tools that are
The Exchange's proposal to expand the Market Order Spread Protection to permit the Exchange to establish different thresholds for one or more series or classes of options, the same as Phlx, would apply uniformly to all market participants.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 24, 2018, the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Rule 9b-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The October 2018 Supplement consists of three parts. Part I addresses foreign currency index options and implied volatility index options. It amends and restates the April 2015 Supplement
The October 2018 Supplement accommodates the introduction of options on foreign currency indexes and implied volatility options whose exercise settlement value is calculated differently than that of existing implied volatility options.
Currently, the ODD states that indexes that may underlie options include stock indexes, variability indexes, strategy-based indexes, dividend indexes, and relative performance indexes. In April 2013, the Commission approved a proposed rule change by the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE”) to list options on the Dow Jones FXCM Dollar Index.
The ODD currently contains general disclosures on the characteristics and risks of trading standardized options on variability indexes. The ODD states that variability indexes are indexes intended to measure the implied volatility, or the realized variance or volatility, of specified stock indexes or specified securities. In January 2014, the Commission approved a proposed rule change by the ISE to list options on the Nations VolDex Index.
The October 2018 Supplement amends disclosures in the ODD regarding implied volatility index options to accommodate the listing of options on the Nations VolDex Index, the SPIKES Index and other similarly structured implied volatility indexes.
The October 2018 Supplement also amends the ODD to reflect that adjustments to some of the terms of options contracts, to account for certain events, such as certain dividend distributions or other corporate actions that affect the underlying security or other underlying interest, will be made by the OCC rather than an adjustment panel of the Securities Committee.
Finally, the October 2018 Supplement makes changes necessary to reflect that the regular exercise settlement date for physical delivery stock options has moved from the third business date following exercise (T+3) to the second business date following exercise (T+2).
The October 2018 Supplement is intended to be read in conjunction with the more general ODD, which discusses the characteristics and risks of options generally.
Rule 9b-1(b)(2)(i) under the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend reporting provisions under CFE Rules 414, 415, and 714 relating to Block Trades and Exchange of Contract for Related Position (“ECRP”) transactions. The scope of this filing is limited solely to the application of the proposed rule amendments to security futures that may be traded on CFE. Although no security futures are currently listed for trading on CFE, CFE may list security futures for trading in the future. The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 4 to the filing but is not attached to the publication of this notice.
In its filing with the Commission, CFE 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. CFE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change revises the criteria for who can act as an Authorized Reporter for Exchange of Contract for Related Position (“ECRP”) transactions and Block Trades and to allow for the assessment of summary fines for violations of two comparable ECRP and Block Trade reporting provisions.
The first two changes provided for in the proposed rule change relate to who can act as an Authorized Reporter for ECRP transactions and Block Trades. CFE Rule 414 (Exchange of Contract for Related Position) governs ECRP transactions and CFE Rule 415 (Block Trades) governs Block Trades. Rule 414(i) and Rule 415(f) provide that each CFE Trading Privilege Holder (“TPH”) executing an ECRP transaction or Block Trade, as applicable, must have at least one designated individual that is either a TPH or a Related Party
CFE understands from TPHs that there are service providers that perform reporting functions that are similar to ECRP transaction and Block Trade reporting and that there are TPHs that would like to utilize individuals from these service providers (who are not either a TPH or a Related Party of a TPH) to act as an Authorized Reporter for ECRP transactions and Block Trades
Accordingly, CFE believes that the elimination of the requirement that an Authorized Reporter be a TPH or Related Party of a TPH will improve the efficiency of CFE's reporting mechanism for ECRP transactions and Block Trades and of CFE's market while still maintaining the key elements of the current ECRP transaction and Block Trade reporting provisions under Rule 414 and Rule 415. Among these elements are that an Authorized Reporter for a TPH will still need to be designated to act in that capacity by the TPH and will still need to be pre-authorized by a Clearing Member for the TPH to act in that capacity. In providing a pre-authorization for an Authorized Reporter, a Clearing Member will also still need to accept responsibility for all ECRP transactions and Block Trades reported to the Exchange by that Authorized Reporter on behalf of the applicable TPH. Additionally, Rule 414(i) and Rule 415(f) will continue to provide that both the parties to and Authorized Reporters for an ECRP transaction or Block Trade, as applicable, are obligated to comply with the requirements of Rule 414 and Rule 415, as applicable. Similarly, Rule 414(i) and Rule 415(f) will continue to provide that any of these parties or Authorized Reporters may be held responsible by the Exchange for noncompliance with those requirements.
Additionally, the proposed rule change makes clear that, to the extent required by applicable law, an Authorized Reporter must be registered or otherwise permitted by the appropriate regulatory body or bodies to act in the capacity of an Authorized Reporter and to conduct related activities. For example, an Authorized Reporter may be required to be registered with the CFTC through the National Futures Association as an Introducing Broker in order to act as an Authorized Reporter and to conduct related activities.
In implementing the proposed rule change, CFE will require an Authorized Reporter that is not a TPH or Related Party of a TPH to execute the form used to designate that party as an Authorized Reporter. CFE will also require the Authorized Reporter to agree in the form to abide by CFE rules applicable to Block Trades and ECRPs, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Exchange with respect to compliance with those provisions, and to acknowledge in the form that the Authorized Reporter must be registered or otherwise permitted by the appropriate regulatory body or bodies to act in the capacity of an Authorized Reporter and to conduct related activities if and to the extent required by applicable law.
The second two changes provided for in the proposed rule change revise CFE Rule 714 (Imposition of Fines for Minor Rule Violations) to include violations of Rule 414(j) and Rule 415(g) within the list of minor rule violations for which the Exchange may impose summary fines. Rule 414(j) and Rule 415(g) provide that each party to an ECRP transaction or Block Trade, as applicable, is obligated to have an Authorized Reporter notify the Exchange of the terms of the transaction after the transaction is agreed upon and that this notification must be made within a Permissible Reporting Period by no later than the Reporting Deadline (as further defined by Rule 414 and Rule 415, as applicable). Rule 714(f)(x) already provides for a summary fine schedule for violations of two other provisions of Rule 414 with reporting requirements applicable to ECRP transactions, and the proposed rule change makes this summary fine schedule also applicable to violations of Rule 414(j). Similarly, Rule 714(f)(xiv) already provides for a summary fine schedule for violations of two other provisions of Rule 415 with reporting requirements applicable to Block Trades, and the proposed rule change makes this summary fine schedule also applicable to violations of Rule 415(g).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will benefit CFE market participants by allowing TPHs to focus on trading and providing liquidity to CFE's market by allowing them to utilize third party service providers to perform the administrative functions of reporting Block Trades and ECRPs. This reporting process involves logging into a portal to CFE's systems, inputting information, and providing to or receiving from the other party a reference ID. Allowing TPHs to focus on trading and providing liquidity in turn inures to the benefit of CFE's market. Additionally, including violations of additional Block Trade and ECRP reporting requirements under CFE's minor rule violation rule is consistent with the current inclusion of similar Block Trade and ECRP reporting requirements under the rule and improves the efficiency of CFE's disciplinary process.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
• To enable the Exchange to enforce compliance by its TPHs and persons associated with its TPHs with the provisions of the rules of the Exchange,
• to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
• to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
• to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and
• to provide a fair procedure for the disciplining of TPHs and persons associated with TPHs.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will improve the efficiency and functioning of the reporting mechanism for ECRP transactions and Block Trades and thus CFE's market by providing TPHs with greater flexibility as to who can act as an Authorized Reporter for these transactions. Also, CFE believes that the application of summary fine schedules for violations of Rule 414(j) and Rule 415(g) will provide motivation and incentive for TPHs and Authorized Reporters to comply with the ECRP transaction and Block Trade reporting requirements under those provisions in order to avoid summary fines and provides an effective and efficient means of disciplining for reporting infractions that do not warrant a regular disciplinary proceeding.
CFE 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, in that the proposed rule change will improve the efficiency and functioning of the reporting mechanism for ECRP transactions and Block Trades and thus CFE's market. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that the rule amendments included in the proposed rule change would apply equally to all CFE market participants.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change will become operative on November 19, 2018. At any time within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the proposed rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC, may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the proposed rule change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to modify its fee schedule.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to correct an inadvertent oversight to update a reference to a transaction fee in the Clearing Trading Permit Holder Fee Cap table (“Fee Cap Table”). Specifically, on January 2, 2018, the Exchange filed a rule filing, SR-CBOE-2018-001, which proposed, among other things, to increase the rate for AIM Facilitation and Solicitation Contra Orders from $0.05 per contract to $0.07 per contract, effective January 2, 2018.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to update an inaccurate rate under the Fee Cap Table will alleviate potential confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and protecting investors and the public interest. As noted above, the proposed filing does not substantively change any transaction fees, but merely corrects an inadvertent oversight from a previous rule filing.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change does not address competitive issues, but rather, as discussed above, is merely intended to correct an inadvertent marking omission relating to a rate change made in a previous rule filing, which will alleviate potential confusion.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”) to clarify the application of the initial listing requirements to common equity securities issued in exchange for a listed Equity Investment Tracking Stock. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Section 102.07 of the Manual sets forth initial listing requirements applicable to the listing of Equity Investment Tracking Stocks. An Equity Investment Tracking Stock is defined as a class of common equity securities that tracks on an unleveraged basis the performance of an investment by the issuer in the common equity securities of a single other company listed on the Exchange. An Equity Investment Tracking Stock may track multiple classes of common equity securities of a single issuer, so long as all of those classes have identical economic rights and at least one of those classes is listed on the Exchange.
The issuer of an Equity Investment Tracking Stock may seek (by a shareholder vote, exchange offer or other legally permissible means) to exchange outstanding shares of the Equity Investment Tracking Stock for newly issued shares of a non-tracking stock class of common equity securities pursuant to a specified exchange ratio. The common stock issued in this exchange may be of an already listed class or it may consist of shares of a class that is not currently listed on the Exchange. However, the initial listing standards for common stock set forth in Section 102.01 of the Manual do not currently specify the listing standards applicable to a newly listed class of common stock issued in exchange for an Equity Investment Tracking Stock. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 102.01 to clarify how the new class of common stock will be listed in such circumstances.
In light of the fact that there is a predecessor security listed on the NYSE, the Exchange believes that the listing of a common stock in exchange for shares of a listed Equity Investment Tracking Stock is more similar to a listing upon transfer from another exchange than it is to an initial public offering. Specifically, such an exchange is comparable to a transfer in that in both cases the Exchange is able to rely on the existence of both historical trading information and a liquid public trading market in making its listing determination. As such the Exchange proposes to apply to such listings the initial listing standards applicable to transfers. The Exchange notes that the initial listing standards for transfers and quotations are at least as high as those for IPOs and are more stringent in certain respects.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 102.01A of the Manual to specify that such common equity securities listed upon consummation of an exchange for a listed Equity Investment Tracking Stock will be subject to the distribution requirements set forth in that rule for transfer and quotation listings. Section 102.01A provides that a company listing in connection with a transfer or quotation listing must have at least 1.1 million publicly held shares
• 400 shareholders of round lots (
• 2,200 total stockholders together with an average monthly trading volume of at least 100,000 shares over the most recent six months; or
• 500 total shareholders together with an average monthly trading volume of at least 1,000,000 shares over the most recent 12 months.
Section 102.01B of the Manual requires companies listing upon transfer from another exchange to demonstrate that they have $100 million in market value of publicly held shares and a closing share price of $4.00 per share.
Any company listing its primary class of common stock on the Exchange must meet one of the two financial tests in Section 102.01C of the Manual, the Earnings Test or the Global Market Capitalization Test. As the Earnings Test is based solely on the issuer's historical financial statements, there are no issues specific to issuers engaged in these sorts of exchanges of Equity Investment Tracking Stocks for common stock. However, the Global Market Capitalization Test requires the issuer to demonstrate that it has $200 million in global market capitalization. In meeting this test, the Exchange proposes to permit issuers to demonstrate their
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The sole purpose of the proposal is to clarify the application of the initial listing requirements to common equity securities issued in exchange for a listed Equity Investment Tracking Stock. As such, the Exchange does not believe the proposal imposes any burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice of meeting of Securities and Exchange Commission Dodd-Frank Investor Advisory Committee.
The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee, established pursuant to Section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, is providing notice that it will hold a public meeting. The public is invited to submit written statements to the Committee.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, December 13, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. (ET). Written statements should be received on or before December 13, 2018.
The meeting will be held in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at
Use the Commission's internet submission form (
Send an email message to
Send paper statements to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File No. 265-28. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us process and review your statement more efficiently, please use only one method.
Statements also will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Room 1503, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
Marc Oorloff Sharma, Chief Counsel, Office of the Investor Advocate, at (202) 551-3302, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
The meeting will be open to the public, except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an administrative work session during lunch. Persons needing special accommodations to take part because of a disability should notify the contact person listed in the section above entitled
The agenda for the meeting includes: Welcome remarks; a discussion regarding disclosures on human capital (which may include a recommendation from the Investor as Owner subcommittee); a discussion regarding disclosures on sustainability and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) topics; a discussion regarding unpaid arbitration awards; subcommittee reports; and a nonpublic administrative work session during lunch.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend General 8 of the Exchange's Rules, as described below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend General 8 of its Rules, which govern the provision by the Exchange of colocation, connectivity, and direct connectivity services and related products, and which set forth the fees that the Exchange charges for those products and services, to: (1) Clarify that all of the products and services set forth in General 8 are shared among the Nasdaq Inc. affiliated exchanges—The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq PHLX LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, and Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (collectively, the “Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges”)—meaning that a firm need only purchase these products and services once to be able to use them to connect to all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to which the firm is otherwise entitled to connect, and to receive the third party services and market data feeds that it is otherwise entitled to receive; and (2) make other
The Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges offer colocation, connectivity, and direct connectivity services and related products to their customers on a shared basis, meaning that a customer may utilize these products and services to gain access to any or all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to which they are otherwise entitled to receive access under the Rules. The Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges only charge customers once for these shared products and services, even to the extent that customers use the products and services to connect to more than one of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. For example, a firm that is a member or member organization, as applicable, of all six Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges, and which co-locates its servers in the Nasdaq Data Center by purchasing a 10 GB fiber connection, cabinet space, cooling fans, and patch cables, only needs to purchase these products and services once to use them to connect to all six Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
Likewise, the Rules were intended to provide for connectivity to third-party services and market data feeds on a shared basis, meaning that a firm need only purchase a subscription to these services once, regardless of whether the firm is a member or member organization, as applicable, of multiple Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
Historically, the Exchange has billed customers on a shared basis for all of the products and services currently set forth in General 8. Presently, however, only certain provisions of General 8 state this fact expressly. That is, provisions in General 8 pertaining to connectivity to the Exchange, direct circuit connectivity to the Exchange, and point-of-presence connectivity to the Exchange, each state that they include connectivity to the other markets of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. However, other provisions in General 8—such as cabinets, cabinet power, fiber and wireless connectivity to market data feeds, and fiber and wireless connectivity to third party services—do not contain such language.
Notwithstanding the absence of express language in these provisions of General 8, the Exchange believes that it is or should be apparent that a firm need only pay once to purchase products and services—like server cabinets, power supplies, and cables—that the firm will use to connect to multiple Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges or to connect to third party services or market data feeds. Indeed, the Exchange is aware of no actual customer confusion on this issue. Nevertheless, the Exchange believes that the existing Rules would benefit from clarification so as to avoid the potential for any confusion in the future.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend General 8 by doing the following: (1) Deleting the existing selective references therein to shared connectivity services; and (2) replacing selective references with the following language, which will serve as a general preface to General 8:
The connectivity products and services that this Rule describes are shared among all of the Nasdaq, Inc. exchanges (The Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq PHLX, LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, and Nasdaq GEMX, LLC). Fees for these products and services are also the same among all of the Nasdaq, Inc. exchanges. As such, a firm need only purchase the products and services listed below from any Nasdaq, Inc. exchange once to connect to any and all of the Nasdaq, Inc. exchanges to which it is otherwise entitled to connect, or to connect to third party market data feeds or services. For example, if a firm purchases connectivity to one Nasdaq, Inc. exchange and then subsequently qualifies to connect to a second Nasdaq, Inc. exchange, then the firm may utilize its existing services for connecting to the first exchange to also connect to the second exchange, without incurring an additional charge.
This preface will clarify that all products and services set forth in General 8 are offered on a shared basis and that a firm need only purchase them once from any of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
In addition to adding this preface, the Exchange also proposes several other non-substantive amendments to General 8 to correct technical errors and to harmonize it with parallel provisions set forth in the rules of the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. These changes will reconcile minor, non-substantive differences in the phrasing and placement of text between the Exchange's General 8 and the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges' Sections 8. The amendments will also remove certain references to the name “Nasdaq” or replace it with general references to “the Exchange.” Finally, the amendments will amend General 8, Section 1(b), which provides for discounted pricing for having multiple millimeter or microwave wireless subscriptions, to state that such pricing applies to subscriptions under General 8, Section 1(b) “and/or any other provision of these Rules that provides for such subscriptions, as may exist, from time to time.” The intended result of the proposed changes—along with similar changes that the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges plan to propose—will be to generalize General 8 and render it completely identical across all six Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. (The Exchange notes that The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC and Nasdaq BX, Inc. offer wireless subscriptions under both General 8, Section 1(b) and Rule 7015/Equity 7, Section 115 of their respective rulebooks.)
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is equitable for the Exchange and the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to collectively charge a firm only once for the products and services set forth in General 8 because the same instance of such products and services may be used by the firm to connect to any or all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to which it is otherwise entitled to connect. Said otherwise, the Exchange does not believe that it would be fair for the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to each charge separate fees to a firm to, say, rent the same cabinet space in the same data center or to purchase the same wires to connect its servers to the market data feed. Moreover, the practice of charging a firm once for products and services with shared applicability among the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges is not unfairly discriminatory because each of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges makes the products and services that are set forth in General 8 of their respective rulebooks available to all similarly situated members at the same prices.
Meanwhile, the Exchange believes that it is just and equitable, and in the interests of the public and investors, for the Exchange to amend General 8 to
The Exchange also believes that it is just and equitable, and in the interests of the public and investors, to harmonize the language of General 8 among all six of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges. Given that General 8 in each of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges' rulebooks sets forth the same products, services, and associated fees that are assessed on a shared basis, the language of General 8 should be uniform across these Exchanges to avoid any confusion about unintended disparities. The proposal makes minor, non-substantive changes to accomplish this harmonization, which include removing references that are idiosyncratic to this Exchange and are not common among all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that its proposals to amend General 8 are non-controversial because they merely codify and clarify the Exchange's existing interpretation of General 8, serve the interests of the public and investors in promoting a more clear and transparent Rulebook that is harmonized with the shared rules of the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges, and because the proposals will not impact competition or limit access to or availability of the Exchange or its systems.
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 proposals merely codify and clarify existing practice of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges to collectively charge a customer only once to connect to any or all of the Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges of which it is a member and to connect to third party services. The proposals also harmonize Section 8 with corresponding provisions of the rulebooks of the other Nasdaq, Inc. Exchanges.
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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of New Jersey dated 10/24/2018.
Issued on 10/24/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15776 6 and for economic injury is 15777 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are New Jersey, New York.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania dated 10/23/2018.
Issued on 10/23/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15760 6 and for economic injury is 15761 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Pennsylvania.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, dated 10/23/2018.
Issued on 10/23/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 157750.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Massachusetts, New Hampshire.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Request for comments and notice of public hearing.
On October 16, 2018, the United States Trade Representative notified Congress of the Administration's intention to enter into negotiations with the United Kingdom (UK) for a U.S.-UK Trade Agreement after the UK has exited the European Union on March 29, 2019. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is seeking public comments on a proposed U.S.-UK Trade Agreement, including U.S. interests and priorities, in order to develop U.S. negotiating positions. You can provide comments in writing and orally at a public hearing. The Administration's aim in negotiations with the UK is to address both tariff and non-tariff barriers and to achieve free, fair, and reciprocal trade.
January 15, 2019: Deadline for the submission of written comments and for written notification of your intent to testify, as well as a summary of your testimony at the public hearing. January 29, 2019: The Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) will hold a public hearing beginning at 9:30 a.m., at the main hearing room of the United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.
You should submit notifications of intent to testify and written comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
For procedural questions concerning written comments, please contact Yvonne Jamison at (202) 395-3475. Direct all other questions to Timothy Wedding, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Europe, at (202) 395-6072.
The decision to launch negotiations for a U.S.-UK Trade Agreement is an important step toward achieving free, fair, and reciprocal trade with the UK and was preceded by the establishment of the U.S.-UK Trade and Investment Working Group in July 2017. The Working Group was launched to provide commercial continuity for UK and U.S. businesses, workers, and consumers as the UK leaves the European Union, explore ways to strengthen trade and investment ties, and lay the groundwork for a potential future trade agreement with the UK.
On October 16, 2018, following consultations with relevant Congressional committees, the United States Trade Representative informed Congress that the President intends to commence negotiations with the UK for a U.S.-UK Trade Agreement.
The TPSC invites interested parties to submit comments and/or oral testimony to assist USTR as it develops negotiating objectives and positions for the agreement, including with regard to objectives identified in section 102 of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (19 U.S.C. 4201). In particular, the TPSC invites interested parties to comment on issues including, but not limited to, the following:
a. General and product-specific negotiating objectives for the proposed agreement.
b. Relevant barriers to trade in goods and services between the U.S. and the UK that should be addressed in the negotiations.
c. Economic costs and benefits to U.S. producers and consumers of removal or reduction of tariffs and removal or reduction of non-tariff barriers on articles traded with the UK.
d. Treatment of specific goods (described by HTSUS numbers) under the proposed agreement, including comments on:
i. Product-specific import or export interests or barriers.
ii. Experience with particular measures that should be addressed in the negotiations.
iii. Ways to address export priorities and import sensitivities in the context of the proposed agreement.
e. Customs and trade facilitation issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.
f. Sanitary and phytosanitary measures and technical barriers to trade that should be addressed in the negotiations.
g. Other measures or practices that undermine fair market opportunities for U.S. businesses, workers, farmers, and ranchers that should be addressed in the negotiations.
USTR must receive written comments no later than Thursday, January 15, 2019. USTR requests that small businesses, generally defined by the Small Business Administration as firms with fewer than 500 employees, or organizations representing small business members, which submit comments to self-identify as such, so that we may be aware of issues of particular interest to small businesses.
The TPSC will hold a hearing on Thursday, January 29, 2019, in the Main Hearing Room at the U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. If necessary, the hearing will continue on the next business day. Persons wishing to testify at the hearing must provide written notification of their intention by January 15, 2019. The intent to testify notification must be made in the ‘type comment' field under docket number USTR-2018-0036 on the
In order to ensure the timely receipt and consideration of comments, USTR strongly encourages commenters to make on-line submissions, using the
To submit comments via
The
For any comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters ‘BC.' Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL on the top of that page. Filers of submissions containing business confidential information also must submit a public version of their comments. The file name of the public version should begin with the character ‘P.' The ‘BC' and ‘P' should be followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments or reply comments. Filers submitting comments containing no business confidential information should name their file using the name of the person or entity submitting the comments.
Please do not attach separate cover letters to electronic submissions; rather, include any information that might appear in a cover letter in the comments themselves. Similarly, to the extent possible, please include any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments in the same file as the submission itself, not as separate files.
As noted, USTR strongly urges submitters to file comments through
USTR will place comments in the docket for public inspection, except business confidential information. General information concerning USTR is available at
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 to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by December 17, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Barbara Hall at (940) 594-5913, or by email at:
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 to renew an information collection. The information collected is used to determine air operators' compliance with the minimum safety standards and the applicants' eligibility for air operations certification.
Written comments should be submitted by December 17, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Barbara Hall at (940) 594-5913, or by email at:
Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
Specifically, petitioners seek a waiver from the provisions of 49 CFR 222.35(b)(1) to establish a new quiet zone consisting of two public highway-rail grade crossings with active grade crossing warning devices comprising both flashing lights and gates that are not equipped with constant warning time devices. The crossing warning devices on the proposed “East Rail Line-Aurora Quiet Zone” on the RTD A-Line are primarily activated by a wireless crossing activation system (WCAS) using “GPS-determined train speed and location to predict how many seconds a train is from the crossing.” Petitioners assert that this information is communicated wirelessly to the crossing warning devices and seeks to provide constant warning times. Additionally, this system is supplemented by a conventional track warning system in case the WCAS is unavailable.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by December 31, 2018 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO or notice).
This notice details the application requirements and procedures to obtain grant
Applications for funding under this solicitation are due no later than 5 p.m. EDT, March 18, 2019. Applications for funding or supplemental material in support of an application received after 5 p.m. EDT, on March 18, 2019 will not be considered for funding. Incomplete applications for funding will not be considered for funding. See Section D of this notice for additional information on the application process.
Applications must be submitted via
For further information regarding project-related information in this notice, please contact Bryan Rodda, Office of Policy and Planning, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W38-203, Washington, DC 20590; email:
The purpose of this notice is to solicit applications for grants for capital projects within the United States to repair, replace, or rehabilitate Qualified Railroad Assets to reduce the state of good repair backlog and improve Intercity Passenger Rail performance under the Partnership Program. The Partnership Program provides a Federal funding opportunity to leverage private, state, and local investments to significantly improve American rail infrastructure. The Partnership Program is authorized in Sections 11103 and 11302 of the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015 (Title XI of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, Public Law 114-94 (2015)) and is funded by the Appropriations Acts.
The Department recognizes the importance of applying life cycle asset management principles throughout America's infrastructure. It is important for rail infrastructure owners and operators, as well as those who may apply on their behalf, to plan for the maintenance and replacement of assets and the associated costs. In light of recent fatal passenger rail accidents, the Department particularly recognizes the opportunity to enhance safety in both track and equipment through this grant program.
The Partnership Program is intended to benefit both the Northeast Corridor (“NEC”) and the large number of publicly-owned or Amtrak-owned infrastructure, equipment, and facilities located in other areas of the country, including strengthening transportation options for rural American communities. Applicants should note that different requirements apply to NEC and non-NEC Partnership projects, with certain eligibility requirements applying only to proposed projects located on the Northeast Corridor, as defined in Section A(2)(f) in this notice. These NEC-specific requirements are described in Section C(3)(b). Further, the Partnership Program has different planning and cost-sharing requirements for Qualified Railroad Assets between proposed NEC and non-NEC projects. These differences are described in detail in Section D(2)(a)(v-vi).
a. “Benefit-Cost Analysis” (or “Cost-Benefit Analysis”) is a systematic, data driven, and transparent analysis comparing monetized project benefits and costs, using a no-build baseline and properly discounted present values, including concise documentation of the assumptions and methodology used to produce the analysis, a description of the baseline, data sources used to project outcomes, and values of key input parameters, basis of modeling including spreadsheets, technical memos, etc., and presentation of the calculations in sufficient detail and transparency to allow the analysis to be reproduced and sensitivity of results evaluated by FRA. Please refer to the Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) Guidance for Discretionary Grant Programs prior to preparing a BCA at
b. “Capital Project” is defined to mean a project primarily intended to replace, rehabilitate, or repair major infrastructure assets utilized for providing Intercity Passenger Rail service, including tunnels, bridges, and stations; or a project primarily intended to improve Intercity Passenger Rail performance, including reduced trip times, increased train frequencies, and higher operating speeds consistent with 49 U.S.C. 24911(a)(2).
c. “Commuter Rail Passenger Transportation” means short-haul rail passenger transportation in metropolitan and suburban areas usually having reduced fare, multiple ride, and commuter tickets and morning and evening peak period operations. See 49 U.S.C. 24102(3).
d. “Intercity Rail Passenger Transportation” is defined by 49 U.S.C. 24102(4) to mean rail passenger transportation, except Commuter Rail Passenger Transportation. In this notice, “Intercity Passenger Rail” is an equivalent term to “Intercity Rail Passenger Transportation.”
e. “Major Capital Project” means a Capital Project with a proposed total project cost of $300 million or more.
f. “Northeast Corridor” (“NEC”) means the main rail line between Boston, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia; the branch rail lines connecting to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Springfield, Massachusetts, and Spuyten Duyvil, New York; and facilities and services used to operate and maintain these lines.
g. A “Qualified Railroad Asset” is defined by 49 U.S.C. 24911(a)(5) to mean infrastructure, equipment, or a facility that:
i. Is owned or controlled by an eligible Partnership Program applicant;
ii. is contained in the Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan prepared under 49 U.S.C. 24904, or an equivalent planning document; and for which the Northeast Corridor Commuter and Intercity Rail Cost Allocation Policy developed under 49 U.S.C. 24905, or a similar cost-allocation policy has been developed;
iii. was not in a State of Good Repair on December 4, 2015 (the date of enactment of the FAST Act).
See Section D(2)(a), Project Narrative, for further details about the Qualified Railroad Asset requirements and application submission instructions related to Qualified Railroad Assets.
h. “State of Good Repair” is defined by 49 U.S.C. 24102(12) to mean a condition in which physical assets, both individually and as a system, are performing at a level at least equal to that called for in their as-built or as-modified design specification during any period when the life cycle cost of maintaining the assets is lower than the cost of replacing them; and sustained through regular maintenance and replacement programs.
The total funding available for awards under this NOFO is $272,250,000 after $2,750,000 is set aside for FRA award and project management oversight as provided in the Appropriations Acts.
While there are no predetermined minimum or maximum dollar thresholds for awards, FRA anticipates making multiple awards with the available funding. FRA encourages applicants to propose projects or components of projects that can be completed and implemented with the level of funding available. Projects may
Applicants proposing a Major Capital Project are encouraged to identify and describe phases or elements that could be candidates for subsequent Partnership Program funding, if such funding becomes available. Applications for a Major Capital Project that would seek future funds beyond fiscal year 2017 and 2018 funding made available in this notice should indicate anticipated annual Federal funding requests from this program for the expected duration of the project. FRA may issue Letters of Intent to Partnership Program grantees proposing Major Capital Projects under 49 U.S.C. 24911(g); such Letters of Intent would serve to announce the FRA's intention to obligate an amount from future available budget authority toward a grantee's future project phases or elements. A Letter of Intent is not an obligation of the Federal government and is subject to the availability of appropriations for Partnership Program grants and subject to Federal laws in force or enacted after the date of the Letter of Intent.
FRA will make awards for projects selected under this notice through grant agreements and/or cooperative agreements. Grant agreements are used when FRA does not expect to have substantial Federal involvement in carrying out the funded activity. Cooperative agreements allow for substantial Federal involvement in carrying out the agreed upon investment, including technical assistance, review of interim work products, and increased program oversight under 2 CFR 200.24. The funding provided under these cooperative agreements will be made available to grantees on a reimbursable basis. Applicants must certify that their expenditures are allowable, allocable, reasonable, and necessary to the approved project before seeking reimbursement from FRA. Additionally, the grantee must expend matching funds at the required percentage alongside Federal funds throughout the life of the project.
As DOT and FRA may be concurrently soliciting applications for transportation infrastructure projects for several financial assistance programs, applicants may submit applications requesting funding for a particular project to one or more of these programs. In the application for Partnership Program funding, applicants must indicate the other programs to which they submitted or plan to submit an application for funding the entire project or certain project components, as well as highlight new or revised information in the Partnership Program application that differs from the application(s) submitted for other financial assistance programs.
This section of the notice explains applicant eligibility, cost sharing and matching requirements, project eligibility, and project component operational independence. Applications that do not meet the requirements in this section will be ineligible for funding. Instructions for submitting eligibility information to FRA are detailed in Section D of this NOFO.
The following entities are eligible applicants for all project types permitted under this notice:
(1) A State (including the District of Columbia);
(2) a group of States;
(3) an Interstate Compact;
(4) a public agency or publicly chartered authority established by one or more States;
(5) a political subdivision of a State;
(6) Amtrak, acting on its own behalf or under a cooperative agreement with one or more States; or
(7) any combination of the entities described in (1) through (6).
Selection preference will be provided for applications jointly submitted by multiple eligible applicants, as further discussed in Section E(1)(c). Joint applicants must identify an eligible applicant as the lead applicant. The lead applicant serves as the primary point of contact for the application, and if selected, as the recipient of the Partnership Program grant award. Eligible applicants may reference entities that are not eligible applicants (
The Federal share of total costs for a project funded under the Partnership Program shall not exceed 80 percent, though FRA will provide selection preference to applications where the proposed Federal share of total project costs does not exceed 50 percent. The estimated total cost of a project must be based on the best available information, including engineering studies, studies of economic feasibility, environmental analyses, and information on the expected use of equipment and facilities. The minimum 20 percent non-Federal share may be comprised of public sector (
FRA is limiting the first 20 percent of the non-Federal match to cash contributions only. FRA will not accept “in-kind” contributions for the first 20 percent in matching funds. Eligible in-kind contributions may be accepted for any non-Federal matching beyond the first 20 percent. In-kind contributions including the donation of services, materials, and equipment, may be credited as a project cost, in a uniform manner consistent with 2 CFR 200.306.
FRA strongly encourages applicants to identify and include other state, local, public agency or authority, or private funding or financing to support the proposed project. Non-federal shares consisting of funding from multiple sources to demonstrate broad participation and cost sharing from affected stakeholders, will be given preference. If Amtrak is an applicant, whether acting on its own behalf or as part of a joint application, Amtrak's ticket and other non-Federal revenues generated from its business operations and other sources may be used as matching funds. Applicants must identify the source(s) of their matching and other funds, and must clearly and distinctly reflect these funds as part of the total project cost in the application budget.
FRA may not be able to award grants to all eligible applications, nor even to all applications that meet or exceed the stated evaluation criteria (see Section E, Application Review Information). Before submitting an application, applicants should carefully review the principles for cost sharing or matching in 2 CFR 200.306. FRA will approve pre-award costs consistent with 2 CFR 200.458. See Section D(6). Additionally, in preparing estimates of total project costs, applicants should refer to FRA's cost estimate guidance, “Capital Cost Estimating: Guidance for Project
Eligible projects within the United States repair, replace, or rehabilitate Qualified Railroad Assets and improve Intercity Passenger Rail performance. Eligible Capital Projects include those that:
(1) Replace existing assets in-kind;
(2) Replace existing assets with assets that increase capacity or provide a higher level of service;
(3) Ensure that service can be maintained while existing assets are brought to a State of Good Repair; and
(4) Bring existing assets into a State of Good Repair.
Qualified Railroad Assets, as further defined in Section A(2), are owned or controlled by an eligible applicant and may include: infrastructure, including track, ballast, switches and interlockings, bridges, communication and signal systems, power systems, highway-rail grade crossings, and other railroad infrastructure and support systems used in intercity passenger rail service; stations, including station buildings, support systems, signage, and track and platform areas; equipment, including passenger cars, locomotives, and maintenance-of-way equipment; and facilities, including yards and terminal areas and maintenance shops.
Capital Projects, as further defined in Section A(2), may include final design; however, final design costs will only be eligible in conjunction with an award for project construction. Environmental and related clearances, including all work necessary for FRA to approve the project under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and related statutes and regulations are not eligible for funding under this notice. (See Section D(2)(a)(ix) for additional information.) Eligible projects with completed environmental and engineering documents, and, for projects located on the NEC, where Amtrak and the public authorities providing Commuter Rail Passenger Transportation on the NEC are in compliance with the cost allocation policy required at 49 U.S.C. 24905(c)(2), indicate strong project readiness. This allows FRA to maximize the funds available in this notice (see Section E(1)(c) for more information on Selection Criteria).
This sub-section provides additional eligibility requirements for projects where the proposed project location includes a portion of the NEC (NEC Projects). Applicants proposing non-NEC projects are not subject to the requirements in this sub-section, and may proceed to the next sub-section C(3)(c).
In the Partnership Program, the NEC is defined as the main rail line between Boston, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, and the branch rail lines connecting to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Springfield, Massachusetts, and Spuyten Duyvil, New York.
Passenger railroad owners and operators on the NEC are subject to a cost allocation policy under 49 U.S.C. 24905(c)(2), and, via the NEC Commission, are required to annually adopt a five-year Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan for the NEC under 49 U.S.C. 24904(a). When selecting projects on the NEC, FRA will consider the appropriate sequence and phasing of projects as contained in the currently approved Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan.
NEC applicants must provide the status of compliance by Amtrak and the public authorities providing Commuter Rail Passenger Transportation at the eligible project location with the cost allocation policy required at 49 U.S.C. 24905(c)(2). FRA may not obligate a grant for a NEC Project unless each of the above service providers at the eligible project location are in compliance with that cost allocation policy. Such providers must maintain compliance with the cost allocation policy for the duration of the project.
If an applicant requests funding for a project that is a component or set of components of a larger project, the project component(s) must be attainable with the award amount and comply with all eligibility requirements described in Section C.
In addition, the component(s) must be capable of independent analysis and decision making, as determined by FRA, under NEPA (
Required documents for the application are outlined in the following paragraphs. Applicants must complete and submit all components of the application. See Section D(2) for the application checklist. FRA welcomes the submission of additional relevant supporting documentation, such as planning, engineering and design documentation, and letters of support from partnering organizations that will not count against the Project Narrative page limit.
Applicants must submit all application materials in their entirety through
For any supporting application materials that an applicant cannot submit via
FRA strongly advises applicants to read this section carefully. Applicants must submit all required information and components of the application package to be considered for funding. Additionally, applicants selected to receive funding must generally satisfy the grant readiness checklist requirements on
Required documents for an application package are outlined in the checklist below.
• Project Narrative (see D.2.a).
• Statement of Work (see D.2.b.i).
• Benefit-Cost Analysis (see D.2.b.ii).
• Environmental Compliance Documentation (see D.2.b.iii).
• SF424—Application for Federal Assistance.
• SF 424C—Budget Information for Construction, or, for an equipment
• SF 424D—Assurances for Construction, or, for an equipment procurement project without any construction costs, or SF 424B—Assurances for Non-Construction.
• FRA's Additional Assurances and Certifications.
• SF LLL—Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.
This section describes the minimum content required in the Project Narrative of grant applications. The Project Narrative must follow the basic outline below to address the program requirements and assist evaluators in locating relevant information.
These requirements must be satisfied through a narrative statement submitted by the applicant. The Project Narrative may not exceed 25 pages in length (excluding cover pages, table of contents, and supporting documentation). FRA will not review or consider for award applications with Project Narratives exceeding the 25-page limitation. If possible, applicants should submit supporting documents via website links rather than hard copies. If supporting documents are submitted, applicants must clearly identify the relevant portion of the supporting document with the page numbers of the cited information in the Project Narrative. The Project Narrative must adhere to the following outline.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
(A) To demonstrate ownership or control by the applicant under 49 U.S.C. 24911(a)(5)(A), show either:
(1) The applicant owns or will, at project completion, have ownership of the infrastructure, equipment, or facility improved by the project; or
(2) The applicant controls or will, at project completion, have control over the infrastructure, equipment, or facility improved by the project by agreement with the owner(s). An agreement should specify the extent of the applicant's management and decision-making authority regarding the infrastructure, equipment, or facility improved by the project. Agreements involving railroad rights-of-way projects should also demonstrate the applicant has dispatching rights for the right-of-way and maintenance-of-way responsibilities.
(B) To demonstrate the planning requirement under 49 U.S.C. 24911(a)(5)(B), show that the project is included in the applicant's current State Rail Plan(s) and, as applicable, in the current Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) or Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STIP) plan.
(C) To demonstrate the cost-sharing requirement under 49 U.S.C. 24911(a)(5)(B), the applicant must:
(1) Be an operator or contributing funding partner of Intercity Rail Passenger transportation who is subject to the Cost Methodology Policy adopted under Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), Public Law 110-432, Oct. 16, 2008; or
(2) demonstrate the applicant(s) involvement in a similar cost-sharing agreement for the project as described in (1).
(D) To demonstrate the state of good repair requirement under 49 U.S.C. 24911(a)(5)(B):
(1) Describe the condition and performance of the infrastructure, equipment, or facility as of the time of enactment of the FAST Act (Dec. 4, 2015);
(2) indicate how the infrastructure, equipment, or facility's condition or performance falls short of the definition of “state of good repair” in Section A(2) (49 U.S.C. 24102(12) parts (A) and/or (B)); and
(3) indicate, if known, when the infrastructure, equipment, or facility last received comprehensive repair, replacement, or rehabilitation work similar to the applicant's proposed scope of work.
vi.
(A) To demonstrate ownership or control by the applicant under 49 U.S.C. 24911(a)(5)(A), show either:
(1) The applicant owns or will, at project completion, have ownership of the infrastructure, equipment, or facility improved by the project; or
(2) The applicant controls or will, at project completion, have control over the infrastructure, equipment, or facility improved by the project by agreement with the owner(s). An agreement should specify the extent of the applicant's management and decision-making authority regarding the infrastructure, equipment, or facility improved by the project. Agreements involving railroad rights-of-way projects should also demonstrate the applicant has dispatching rights for the right-of-way and maintenance-of-way responsibilities.
(B) To demonstrate the planning requirement under 49 U.S.C. 24911(a)(5)(B), the NEC applicant must show that the infrastructure, equipment, or facility is included in the current approved Five-Year Capital Investment Plan prepared by the NEC Commission under 49 U.S.C. 24904(a).
(C) To demonstrate the cost-sharing requirement under 49 U.S.C. 24911(a)(5)(B), the infrastructure, equipment, or facility must be subject to the NEC Cost Allocation Policy developed under 49 U.S.C. 24905(c)(2).
(D) To demonstrate the state of good repair requirement under 49 U.S.C. 24911(a)(5)(C), the NEC applicant must:
(1) Describe the condition and performance of the infrastructure, equipment, or facility as of the time of enactment of the FAST Act (Dec. 4, 2015);
(2) indicate how the infrastructure, equipment, or facility's condition or performance falls short of the definition of “state of good repair” in Section A(2) (49 U.S.C. 24102(12) parts (A) and/or (B)); and
(3) indicate, if known, when the infrastructure, equipment, or facility last received comprehensive repair, replacement, or rehabilitation work similar to the applicant's proposed scope of work.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
Applicants must submit:
i. A Statement of Work (SOW) addressing the scope, schedule, and budget for the proposed project if it were selected for award. For Major Capital Projects, the SOW must include annual budget estimates and anticipated Federal funding for the expected duration of the project. The SOW must contain sufficient detail so FRA, and the applicant, can understand the expected outcomes of the proposed work to be performed and can monitor progress toward completing project tasks and deliverables during a prospective grant's period of performance. Applicants must use FRA's standard SOW template to be considered for award. The SOW template is located at
ii. A Benefit-Cost Analysis consistent with 49 U.S.C. 24911(d)(2)(A) that demonstrates the merit of investing in the proposed project. The analysis should be systematic, data driven, and examine the trade-offs between reasonably expected project costs and benefits. Please refer to the Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance for Discretionary Grant Programs prior to preparing a BCA at
iii. Environmental compliance documentation, if a website link is not cited in the Project Narrative.
iv. SF 424—Application for Federal Assistance.
v. SF 424C—Budget Information for Construction, or, for an equipment procurement project without any other construction elements, the SF 424A—Budget Information for Non-Construction.
vi. SF 424D—Assurances for Construction, or, for an equipment procurement project without any other construction elements, the SF 424B—Assurances for Non-Construction.
vii. FRA's Additional Assurances and Certifications.
viii. An SF LLL—Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.
Forms needed for the electronic application process are at
See subsection F(2) of this notice for post-selection requirements.
To apply for funding through
FRA may not make a discretionary grant award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) and SAM requirements. (Please note that if a Dun & Bradstreet DUNS number must be obtained or renewed, this may take a significant amount of time to complete.) Late applications that are the result of a failure to register or comply with
A DUNS number is required for
All applicants for Federal financial assistance must maintain current registrations in the SAM database. An applicant must be registered in SAM to successfully register in
Applicants must complete an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) profile on
The E-Biz POC at the applicant's organization must respond to the registration email from
If an applicant experiences difficulties at any point during this process, please call the
Please use generally accepted formats such as .pdf, .doc, .docx, .xls, .xlsx and .ppt, when uploading attachments. While applicants may embed picture files, such as .jpg, .gif, and .bmp, in document files, applicants should not submit attachments in these formats. Additionally, the following formats will not be accepted: .com, .bat, .exe, .vbs, .cfg, .dat, .db, .dbf, .dll, .ini, .log, .ora, .sys, and .zip.
Applicants must submit complete applications to
To ensure a fair competition of limited discretionary funds, the following conditions are not valid reasons to permit late submissions: (1)
Executive Order 12372 requires applicants from State and local units of government or other organizations providing services within a State to submit a copy of the application to the State Single Point of Contact (SPOC), if one exists, and if this program has been selected for review by the State. Applicants must contact their State SPOC to determine if the program has been selected for State review.
FRA will not fund any preliminary engineering, environmental work, or related clearances under this NOFO. FRA will only consider funding a project's final design activities if the applicant is also seeking funding for construction activities. FRA will only approve pre-award costs if such costs are incurred pursuant to the negotiation and in anticipation of the grant agreement and if such costs are necessary for efficient and timely performance of the scope of work consistent with 2 CFR 200.458. Under 2 CFR 200.458, grant recipients must seek written approval from FRA for pre-award activities to be eligible for reimbursement under the grant. Activities initiated prior to the execution of a grant or without FRA's written approval may not be eligible for reimbursement or included as a grantee's matching contribution.
FRA is prohibited under 49 U.S.C. 24405(f)
FRA will first screen each application for applicant and project eligibility (eligibility requirements are outlined in Section C of this notice), completeness (application documentation and submission requirements are outlined in Section D of this notice), and the 20 percent minimum match in determining whether the application is eligible.
FRA will then consider the applicant's past performance in developing and delivering similar projects, and previous financial contributions.
FRA subject-matter experts will evaluate all eligible and complete applications using the evaluation criteria outlined in this section to determine technical merit and project benefits.
i. Technical Merit: FRA will evaluate application information for the degree to which—
(A) The tasks and subtasks outlined in the SOW are appropriate to achieve the expected outcomes of the proposed project.
(B) The technical qualifications and demonstrated experience of key personnel proposed to lead and perform the technical efforts, and the qualifications of the primary and supporting organizations to fully and successfully execute the proposed project within the proposed timeframe and budget.
(C) The proposed project's business plan considers potential private sector participation in the financing, construction, or operation of the proposed project.
(D) The applicant has, or will have the legal, financial, and technical capacity to carry out the project; satisfactory continuing control over the use of the equipment or facilities; and the capability and willingness to maintain the equipment or facilities.
(E) Eligible Projects have completed necessary pre-construction activities and indicate strong project readiness.
(F) For NEC Projects, the sequence and phasing of the proposed project is consistent with the Five-Year Capital Investment Plan prepared by the NEC Commission under 49 U.S.C. 24904(a).
(G) The project is consistent with planning guidance and documents set forth by the Secretary of Transportation or required by law.
ii. Project Benefits: FRA will evaluate the benefit-cost analysis of the proposed project for the anticipated private and public benefits relative to the costs of the proposed project including—
(A) Effects on system and service performance;
(B) Effects on safety, competitiveness, reliability, trip or transit time, and resilience;
(C) Efficiencies from improved integration with other modes; and
(D) Ability to meet existing or anticipated demand.
In addition to the eligibility and completeness review and the evaluation criteria outlined in this subsection, the FRA Administrator will apply the following selection criteria.
i. FRA will give preference to projects for which:
(A) Amtrak is not the sole applicant;
(B) Applications were submitted jointly by multiple applicants;
(C) Proposed Federal share of total project costs does not exceed 50 percent;
ii. After applying the above preferences, the FRA Administrator will take in account the following key Departmental priorities:
(A) Supporting economic vitality at the national and regional level;
(B) Leveraging Federal funding to attract other, non-Federal sources of infrastructure investment;
(C) Preparing for future operations and maintenance costs associated with their project's life-cycle, as demonstrated by a credible plan to maintain assets without having to rely on future Federal funding;
(D) Using innovative approaches to improve safety and expedite project delivery; and
(E) Holding grant recipients accountable for their performance and achieving specific, measurable outcomes identified by grant applicants.
(F) Proposed non-Federal share is comprised of more than one source, including private sources, demonstrating broad participation by affected stakeholders; and
(G) Applications indicate strong project readiness.
FRA will conduct a three-part application review process, as follows:
a. Screen applications for completeness and eligibility;
b. Evaluate eligible applications (completed by technical panels applying the evaluation criteria); and
c. Select projects for funding (completed by the FRA Administrator applying the selection criteria).
Applications selected for funding will be announced in a press release and on FRA's website after the application review period. FRA will contact applicants with successful applications after announcement with information and instructions about the award process. This notification is not an authorization to begin proposed project activities. A formal grant agreement or cooperative agreement signed by both the grantee and the FRA, including an approved scope, schedule, and budget, is required before the award is considered complete. See an example of standard terms and conditions for FRA grant awards at
Due to funding limitations, projects that are selected for funding may receive less than the amount originally requested. In those cases, applicants must be able to demonstrate the proposed projects are still viable and can be completed with the amount awarded.
Grantees and entities receiving funding from the grantee must comply with all applicable laws and regulations. A non-exclusive list of administrative and national policy requirements that grantees must follow includes: 2 CFR part 200; procurement standards; compliance with Federal civil rights laws and regulations; disadvantaged business enterprises; debarment and suspension; drug-free workplace; FRA's and OMB's Assurances and Certifications; Americans with Disabilities Act; safety oversight; NEPA; environmental justice; and the requirements in 49 U.S.C. 24405 including the Buy America requirements and the provision deeming operators rail carriers and employers for certain purposes.
Before making a Federal award with a total amount of Federal share greater than the simplified acquisition threshold of $250,000 (see OMB M-18-18, Implementing Statutory Changes to the Micro-Purchase and the Simplified Acquisition Thresholds for Financial Assistance, 2 CFR 200.88), FRA will review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)) (see 41 U.S.C. 2313).
An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through SAM and comment on any information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered and is currently in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM.
FRA will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in the designated integrity and performance system, in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 2 CFR 200.205.
Each applicant selected for a grant will be required to comply with all standard FRA reporting requirements, including quarterly progress reports, quarterly Federal financial reports, and interim and final performance reports, as well as all applicable auditing, monitoring and close out requirements. Reports may be submitted electronically.
The applicant must comply with all relevant requirements of 2 CFR part 200.
Each applicant selected for funding must collect information and report on the project's performance using measures mutually agreed upon by FRA and the grantee to assess progress in achieving strategic goals and objectives. Examples of some rail performance measures are listed in the table below. The applicable measure(s) will depend upon the type of project. Applicants requesting funding for rolling stock must integrate at least one equipment/rolling stock performance measure, consistent with the grantee's application materials and program goals.
For further information regarding this notice and the grants program, please contact Amy Houser, Office of Program Delivery, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W36-412, Washington, DC 20590; email:
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of four individuals that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the General Counsel: Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202-622-2410.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On November 13, 2018, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. AL-ZAYDI, Shibl Muhsin `Ubayd (a.k.a. AL ZAIDI, Shebl; a.k.a. AL ZAIDI, Shibl; a.k.a. AL-ZADI, Shibl Muhsin Ubayd; a.k.a. AL-ZAYDI, Hajji Shibl Muhsin; a.k.a. MAHDI, Ja'far Salih; a.k.a. “SHIBL, Hajji”), Iraq; DOB 28 Oct 1968; POB Baghdad, Iraq; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations; alt. Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male (individual) [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR] (Linked To: ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE; Linked To: HIZBALLAH).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for acting for or on behalf of ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE, an entity determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
Designated pursuant to section 1(d)(i) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of HIZBALLAH, an entity determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
2. HASHIM, Yusuf (a.k.a. HASHIM, Yusef; a.k.a. “SADIQ, Hajji”; a.k.a. “SADIQ, Sayyid”), Al Zahrani, Lebanon; DOB 1962; POB Beirut, Lebanon; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations; Gender Male (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: HIZBALLAH).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for acting for or on behalf of HIZBALLAH, an entity determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
3. FARHAT, Muhammad `Abd-Al-Hadi (a.k.a. FARHAT, Mohamad), Iraq; DOB 06 Apr 1967; POB Kuwait; nationality Lebanon; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations; Gender Male; Passport RL 2274078 (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: HIZBALLAH).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for acting for or on behalf of HIZBALLAH, an entity determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
4. KAWTHARANI, Adnan Hussein (a.k.a. AL-KAWTHARANI, Adnan; a.k.a. KAWTHARANI, Adnan Mahmud; a.k.a. KAWTHRANI, Adnan; a.k.a. KUTHERANI, Adnan), Al Zahrani, Lebanon; Najaf, Iraq; DOB 02 Sep 1954; POB Lebanon; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations; Gender Male (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: HIZBALLAH).
Designated pursuant to section 1(d)(i) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of HIZBALLAH, an entity determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
Regulatory Information Service Center.
Introduction to the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
Publication of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions and the Regulatory Plan represent key components of the regulatory planning mechanism prescribed in Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” January 30, 2017, and Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” February 24, 2017. The fall editions of the Unified Agenda include the agency regulatory plans required by E.O. 12866, which identify regulatory priorities and provide additional detail about the most important significant regulatory actions that agencies expect to take in the coming year.
In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies publish semiannual “regulatory flexibility agendas” describing regulatory actions they are developing that will have significant effects on small businesses and other small entities (5 U.S.C. 602).
The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda), published in the fall and spring, helps agencies fulfill all of these requirements. All federal regulatory agencies have chosen to publish their regulatory agendas as part of this publication. The complete Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan can be found online at
The fall 2018 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
The complete fall 2018 Unified Agenda contains the Regulatory Plans of 28 Federal agencies and 66 Federal agency regulatory agendas.
Regulatory Information Service Center (MVE), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, 2219F, Washington, DC 20405.
For further information about specific regulatory actions, please refer to the agency contact listed for each entry.
To provide comment on or to obtain further information about this publication, contact: John C. Thomas, Executive Director, Regulatory Information Service Center (MVE), U.S. General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, 2219F, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 482-7340. You may also send comments to us by email at:
The fall 2018 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
The following agencies have no entries for inclusion in the printed regulatory flexibility agenda. An asterisk (*) indicates agencies that appear in The Regulatory Plan. The regulatory agendas of these agencies are available to the public at
The Regulatory Information Service Center compiles the Unified Agenda for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), part of the Office of Management and Budget. OIRA is responsible for overseeing the Federal Government's regulatory, paperwork, and information resource management activities, including implementation of Executive Order 12866 (incorporated in Executive Order 13563). The Center also provides information about Federal regulatory activity to the President and his Executive Office, the Congress, agency officials, and the public.
The activities included in the Agenda are, in general, those that will have a regulatory action within the next 12 months. Agencies may choose to include activities that will have a longer timeframe than 12 months. Agency agendas also show actions or reviews completed or withdrawn since the last
Agencies prepared entries for this publication to give the public notice of their plans to review, propose, and issue regulations. They have tried to predict their activities over the next 12 months as accurately as possible, but dates and schedules are subject to change. Agencies may withdraw some of the regulations now under development, and they may issue or propose other regulations not included in their agendas. Agency actions in the rulemaking process may occur before or after the dates they have listed. The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda do not create a legal obligation on agencies to adhere to schedules in this publication or to confine their regulatory activities to those regulations that appear within it.
Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” January 30, 2017 (82 FR 9339) requires each agency to identify for elimination two prior regulations for every one new regulation issued, and the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.
Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” February 24, 2017 (82 FR 12285) requires each agency to designate an agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO). Each RRO shall oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable law. The Executive Order also directs that each agency designate a regulatory Reform Task Force.
Each agency's section of the Plan contains a narrative statement of regulatory priorities and, for most agencies, a description of the agency's most important significant regulatory and deregulatory actions. Each agency's part of the Agenda contains a preamble providing information specific to that agency plus descriptions of the agency's regulatory and deregulatory actions.
The online, complete Unified Agenda contains the preambles of all participating agencies. Unlike the printed edition, the online Agenda has no fixed ordering. In the online Agenda, users can select the particular agencies' agendas they want to see. Users have broad flexibility to specify the characteristics of the entries of interest to them by choosing the desired responses to individual data fields. To see a listing of all of an agency's entries, a user can select the agency without specifying any particular characteristics of entries.
Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Long-Term Actions are rulemakings reported during the publication cycle that are outside of the required 12-month reporting period for which the Agenda was intended. Completed Actions in the publication cycle are rulemakings that are ending their lifecycle either by Withdrawal or completion of the rulemaking process. Therefore, the Long-Term and Completed RINs do not represent the ongoing, forward-looking nature intended for reporting developing rulemakings in the Agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, section 4(b) and 4(c). To further differentiate these two stages of rulemaking in the Unified Agenda from active rulemakings, Long-Term and Completed Actions are reported separately from active rulemakings, which can be any of the first three stages of rulemaking listed above. A separate search function is provided on
A bullet (•) preceding the title of an entry indicates that the entry is appearing in the Unified Agenda for the first time.
In the printed edition, all entries are numbered sequentially from the beginning to the end of the publication. The sequence number preceding the title of each entry identifies the location of the entry in this edition. The sequence number is used as the reference in the printed table of contents. Sequence numbers are not used in the online Unified Agenda because the unique Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is able to provide this cross-reference capability.
Editions of the Unified Agenda prior to fall 2007 contained several indexes, which identified entries with various characteristics. These included regulatory actions for which agencies believe that the Regulatory Flexibility Act may require a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, actions selected for periodic review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and actions that may have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132 or other effects on levels of government. These indexes are no longer compiled, because users of the online Unified Agenda have the flexibility to search for entries with any combination of desired characteristics. The online edition retains the Unified Agenda's subject index based on the
All entries in the online Unified Agenda contain uniform data elements including, at a minimum, the following information:
As defined in Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking action that will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or will adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
A rulemaking that is not Economically Significant but is considered Significant by the agency. This category includes rules that the agency anticipates will be reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or rules that are a priority of the agency head. These rules may or may not be included in the agency's regulatory plan.
A rulemaking that has substantive impacts, but is neither Significant, nor Routine and Frequent, nor Informational/Administrative/Other.
A rulemaking that is a specific case of a multiple recurring application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations and that does not alter the body of the regulation.
A rulemaking that is primarily informational or pertains to agency matters not central to accomplishing the agency's regulatory mandate but that the agency places in the Unified Agenda to inform the public of the activity.
Some agencies have provided the following optional information:
The following abbreviations appear throughout this publication:
•
• A reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed; and Either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.
Copies of the
Copies of individual agency materials may be available directly from the agency or may be found on the agency's website. Please contact the particular agency for further information.
All editions of The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions since fall 1995 are available in electronic form at
The Government Printing Office's GPO FDsys website contains copies of the Agendas and Regulatory Plans that have been printed in the
Regulatory reform is a cornerstone of President Trump's agenda for economic growth. This Plan reaffirms the principles of individual liberty and limited government essential to reform. It also highlights the success of ongoing efforts, initiatives for improving accountability, and the promotion of good regulatory practices.
Across the Trump Administration, real regulatory reform is underway. As the agency examples throughout the Plan demonstrate, the benefits of a more rational regulatory system are felt far and wide and create opportunities for economic growth and development. Farmers can more productively use their land. Small businesses can hire more workers and provide more affordable healthcare. Innovators will be able to pursue advances in autonomous vehicles, drones, and commercial space exploration. Veterans enjoy expanded access to doctors through a telehealth program. Infrastructure can be improved more quickly with streamlined permitting requirements. These reforms and many others make life better for all Americans through lower consumer prices, more jobs, and, in the long run, improvements in well-being that result from the advance of innovative new products and services.
Private choices of individuals and businesses should generally prevail in a free society. Yet in modern times, the expansion of the administrative state has placed undue burdens on the public, impeding economic growth, technological innovation, and consumer choice. This Administration has spearheaded an unprecedented effort to
The Administration's regulatory agenda involves structural reforms as well as the practical work of eliminating and revising regulations. Agencies continue to advance the health and safety mandates that Congress has entrusted to them and to revamp vital programs to increase their effectiveness. At the same time, agencies are revising or rescinding regulations that fail to address real-world problems, that are needlessly burdensome, and that prevent Americans from advancing innovative solutions. Our reform efforts emphasize the rule of law, respect for the Constitution's separation of powers, and the limits of agency authority.
At the outset, President Trump set forth a general mandate for regulatory reform across the Administration. Consistent with legal obligations, Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” January 30, 2017) directs a two-fold approach to reform: It requires that agencies eliminate two regulations for each new significant regulation and also requires that agencies offset any new regulatory costs. By requiring a reduction in the number of regulations, the order incentivizes agencies to identify regulations and guidance documents that do not provide sufficient benefits to the public. Agencies have reduced or eliminated unnecessary requirements large and small. For the first time in decades, Federal agencies have decreased new regulatory costs, while continuing to pursue important regulatory priorities.
Agencies have achieved historic and meaningful regulatory reform in the first two years.
• For fiscal year 2018, agencies achieved $23 billion in net regulatory cost savings across the government.
• Agencies issued 176 deregulatory actions (57 of which are significant deregulatory actions) and 14 significant regulatory actions.
• These results expand and build upon the success of the Administration's first year, for a total regulatory cost reduction of $33 billion.
In addition to these impressive results, the agencies project $18 billion in regulatory cost savings for 2019. In addition, the “Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule” revises the greenhouse gas standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks. The Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency have proposed a range of options that are projected to save between $120 and $340 billion in regulatory costs and anticipate completion of the rule in fiscal year 2019. The momentum for reform continues to accelerate as agencies complete substantial deregulatory actions.
The Administration's regulatory reform is committed to the rule of law, understood as respect for the constitutional structure as well as the specific laws enacted by Congress. The Constitution establishes a relatively simple framework for regulation. Congress is vested with limited and enumerated legislative powers, which it may use to set regulatory policy and establish the authority of agencies to issue regulations. The President is vested with the executive power, which includes overseeing and directing administration of the laws. Within the framework and directions established by Congress, political accountability for regulatory policy depends on presidential responsibility and control. As Alexander Hamilton explained, “Energy in the executive is a leading character of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks: It is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws.” The Federalist No. 70.
The annual Regulatory Plan has provided a longstanding form of presidential accountability for the regulatory policy of federal agencies as well as for the specific regulatory actions planned for the forthcoming year. Through the process of reviewing the Plan and Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, OIRA helps agencies to direct administrative action consistent with presidential priorities. Agency heads explain their priorities through the narrative of the Regulatory Plan and list specific deregulatory and regulatory actions expected to be completed in the coming year. This process provides an important gatekeeping role to ensure agencies pursue only those actions consistent with law and that have the support of the heads of agencies and ultimately the President. Likewise, review of draft regulatory actions through Executive Order 12866 advances good regulatory policy consistent with legal requirements, sound analysis, and presidential priorities.
Faithful execution of the laws also includes respect for the lawmaking power of Congress. Although Congress often confers substantial discretion on agencies, OIRA works with agencies to limit expansive interpretations of executive authority and to regulate within the boundaries of the law. Carefully examining statutory authority and keeping agencies within the limits set by Congress protects against executive agencies exercising the legislative power. OIRA also works with agencies to ensure compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act. The requirements of public notice and opportunity for comment bolster the legitimacy of agency action and can provide refinements that improve the ultimate policy chosen by an agency.
Moreover, OIRA is looking closely at existing statutory requirements for limiting administrative excess across federal agencies, including within the historically independent agencies. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, all federal agencies must comply with specific requirements before collecting information from the public. OIRA plays an important role in reviewing forms that collect information, verifying that they have practical utility and are as minimally burdensome as possible. Reduction of paperwork burdens plays an important role in eliminating unnecessary, duplicative, or conflicting regulatory requirements.
The Administration's commitment to the rule of law finds expression in other initiatives, such as restoring the proper use of guidance documents. While guidance documents may provide needed clarification of existing legal obligations, they have sometimes been stretched to impose new obligations. OIRA and the White House Counsel's Office have repeatedly affirmed the importance of due process and fair notice in regulatory policy and worked closely with agencies to prevent the misuse of guidance documents. Agencies should not surprise the public
Through the review process for significant guidance documents, OIRA has identified proposed agency guidance that should be undertaken only through notice and comment rulemaking. Some agencies have withdrawn expansive guidance from the previous administration and are replacing it with rulemaking, rather than simply a revised guidance document. Rulemaking undoubtedly requires more agency time and resources; however, it also provides fair notice and allows input from the public, which ultimately results in more lawful and predictable regulatory policy.
Other agencies are also taking important steps. The Department of Justice clarified that guidance documents would not be used for enforcement purposes. Several agencies subsequently followed this principle, including a group of historically independent financial regulatory agencies. Other agencies are in the process of revising their guidance policies to promote greater accountability in the development, promulgation, and access to guidance documents.
Ensuring the proper use of guidance documents; eliminating outdated or stale guidance; requiring internal checks that enhance accountability for guidance; and providing greater transparency and online access to guidance documents are steps forward in promoting sound regulatory policy across the federal government. OIRA will continue to work with agencies to improve and refine their guidance practices.
Regulatory reform in the Trump Administration includes the promotion and expansion of longstanding good regulatory practices such as transparency, coordination, and cost-benefit analysis. These practices improve regulatory outcomes irrespective of the policy preferences of an agency or administration.
For example, OIRA collaborates with agencies to make the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions a more accurate reflection of what agencies plan to pursue in the coming year. Agencies must make every effort to include actions they plan to pursue, because if an item is not on the Agenda, under Executive Order 13771, an agency cannot move forward unless it obtains a waiver or the action is required by law. A clear and accurate Agenda helps avoid unfair surprise and achieves greater predictability of upcoming actions.
This Administration has also published the so-called “Inactive List,” a list of regulations contemplated by agencies, but previously not made public in the Agenda. Agencies continue to review these lists and remove actions they no longer plan to pursue. Publication of the list promotes agency accountability for all regulatory actions under consideration and a more accurate picture of regulations in the pipeline.
Furthermore, in the process of implementing the historic reforms of Executive Order 13771, OIRA published detailed information about the cost allowances, cost savings, and specific actions counted as regulatory and deregulatory. OIRA issued early guidance on how the Executive Order would be implemented. Drawing from the successful experience of similar deregulatory programs in the United Kingdom and Canada, the guidance explained that even small deregulatory actions would be counted in order to incentivize agencies to eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens of all sizes. This transparency allows the public to understand the accounting methodology and the choices made to encourage the greatest possible reform efforts from the agencies.
Through the review process, agencies and senior officials within the Executive Office of the President have an opportunity to comment on draft regulations. These reviewers flag policy concerns or problems of duplication, inconsistency, and inefficiency. Such coordination allows for careful consideration of competing priorities and how they should be balanced across the Executive Branch. The review process also allows for coordination in other contexts, such as when one agency's rule implicates the programs or legal authorities of another. Interagency review can ameliorate problems arising from overlapping statutory mandates. Review can also strengthen the legal foundation and the supporting analysis of rules—bolstering their effectiveness and also their ability to survive legal challenge.
The historically independent agencies sometimes participate in the review process when a regulation raises issues that implicate their jurisdiction. Because these agencies are not generally subject to other White House coordination mechanisms, the review process provides an opportunity to ensure greater consistency across all agencies within the Executive Branch.
Finally,
Careful analysis that accurately captures both the benefits and costs of regulation is essential to achieving good regulatory policy. Consideration of alternatives and an assessment of their costs and benefits serves an important function by providing transparency for regulatory decisions and information that can inform public comment on the impact of regulatory alternatives before a rule is finalized. While anticipating and quantifying the costs and benefits of regulations pose challenges in some contexts, OIRA will continue to work closely with agencies to improve their analyses.
One of the practical consequences of Executive Order 13771 is that agencies have a new and meaningful incentive to engage in retrospective review of regulations, which President Obama called for in Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” January 18, 2011). When issuing a rule, an agency can only
Administration-wide regulatory reform efforts have been coupled with targeted reforms in specific high-burden areas. For example, the President issued Executive Order 13789 (“Identifying and Reducing Tax Regulatory Burdens,” April 21, 2017), directing the Department of the Treasury to identify and reduce tax regulatory burdens because America's “Federal tax system should be simple, fair, efficient, and pro-growth.” In addition to other measures, the President called for a review of whether tax regulations should go through the centralized OIRA regulatory review process. Tax regulations were previously exempt from this process, in part contributing to the problem of burdensome, complicated, and inefficient tax regulatory policy identified by Executive Order 13789.
After conducting this review, the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of the Treasury signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), “Review of Tax Regulations under Executive Order 12866” (April 11, 2018). The MOA recognizes the importance of presidential oversight and accountability, particularly where tax regulations reflect the exercise of discretion, raise important legal or policy questions, or impose substantial costs on the public. Tax regulations uniquely impact all Americans and have significant consequences for investment, economic growth, and innovation. The OIRA review process provides an important check to ensure that tax regulations are consistent with the President's priorities for a “simple, fair, efficient, and pro-growth” tax system.
The historic reforms enacted in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) require Treasury to issue a number of regulations. The MOA provides for the possibility of expedited review of TCJA regulations in order to provide timely guidance and information to the public. Over the past few months, Treasury and OIRA have worked closely together to improve tax regulations, ensuring that regulations are consistent with law, demonstrate benefits that exceed the costs, and impose the fewest possible burdens on the public. The review process encourages greater transparency of the impacts of the regulation, highlighting where the agency exercises discretion and the anticipated burdens placed on the public, including paperwork and other compliance burdens. When Treasury provides this information in a proposed rule, the public has a more informed basis from which to comment on the rule and share information about the consequences of particular regulatory choices. Moreover, the review process facilitates coordination with other agencies to avoid conflict with other administration priorities.
The improvement of tax regulations demonstrates a specific success in the Administration's regulatory reform agenda. It also reaffirms the value of the OIRA centralized review process for promoting presidential priorities and good regulatory practices such as transparency, coordination, and robust cost-benefit analysis.
Consistent with its longstanding commitment to the principles of good regulatory policy, OIRA works closely with agencies to advance regulatory policy that is consistent with law and the President's priorities and yields substantial net benefits for the public. The first two years of the Administration have produced unparalleled reform, and we project even more significant results in the coming year.
The Department of Agriculture's (USDA) ongoing regulatory reform strategy remains one of the cornerstones for creating a culture of consistent, efficient service to our customers, while reducing burdens and improving efficiency. Accordingly, USDA's fall 2018 Regulatory Agenda reflects these priorities, including those administrative efficiencies such as streamlining and one-stop shopping. Moreover, these USDA regulatory reform efforts, combined with other reform efforts, will make it easier to invest, produce, and build in rural America, which will lead to the creation of jobs and enhanced economic prosperity. To achieve results, USDA is guided by the following comprehensive set of priorities through which the Department, its employees, and external partners will work to identify and eliminate regulatory and administrative barriers and improve business processes to enhance program delivery and reduce burdens on program participants. These priorities include:
Executive Order 13777 establishes a Federal policy to lower regulatory burdens on the American people by implementing and enforcing regulatory reform. The RRTF reviewed proposed, pending and existing regulations to determine the deregulatory and regulatory actions to include in the 2018 fall Regulatory Agenda. These actions were further evaluated to determine which rules should be made a priority based on the impact of their proposals and the Department's ability to finalize the action in FY 2019. Executive Order 13777 also directed the Department to seek input from entities significantly affected by Federal regulations. To satisfy this requirement, the Department published a Request for Information (RFI) in the
Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to eliminate two existing regulations for every new regulation while limiting the total costs associated with an agency's regulations. Specifically, it requires a regulatory two-for-one wherein an agency must propose the elimination of two existing regulations for every new regulation it publishes. Moreover, the costs associated with the new regulation must be completely offset by cost savings brought about by deregulation.
The Department's 2018 fall Regulatory Agenda reflects the Department's commitment to regulatory reform and continues USDA's rigorous implementation of Executive Order 13771. The Regulatory Agenda identifies 72 rules, of which 34 rules are not subject to the offsetting or deregulatory requirements of Executive Order 13771. Of the remaining 38 rules, 32 are deregulatory and six are regulatory. Of the 32 deregulatory actions, USDA has identified 16 final rules that will be completed in FY 2019 resulting in either a cost savings or meeting the direction that an agency issue twice as many Executive Order 13771 deregulatory actions as Executive Order 13771 regulatory actions.
USDA's 2018 fall Statement of Regulatory Priorities was developed to lower regulatory burdens on the American people by implementing and enforcing regulatory reform. These regulatory priorities will contribute to the mission of the Department, and the achievement of the long-term goals the Department aims to accomplish. Highlights of how the Department's regulatory reform efforts contribute to the accomplishment of the Department's strategic goals include the following:
In addition, FSIS is proposing to amend the egg products inspection regulations by removing the current requirements for prior approval by FSIS of egg products plant drawings, specifications, and equipment prior to
Potential industry cost reductions from the proposed rule come from generic labeling, and the elimination of certain regulations, waivers, and no objection letters. Under generic labeling, plants do not have to submit certain labels to FSIS for small changes, allowing plants to avoid a 60-day approval process and documentation of submissions for the approval of new labels. In addition, plants receive cost savings from the elimination of outdated regulations. The regulatory requirements in the current system may inefficiently use industry resources. HACCP gives egg products plants the flexibility to decide how they wish to produce product in the manner that is most efficient to them, so that no detectable pathogens remain in the finished product.
Under the current command-and-control based system, FSIS personnel must approve waivers and no objection letters for certain plant activities outside the current regulations and inspection program, personnel assume responsibility for “approving” production-associated decisions. Under HACCP, industry would assume full responsibility for production decisions and execution. FSIS would monitor plants' compliance with the requirement that finished egg products not contain detectable pathogens and within HACCP requirements. This allows industry and the Agency to reduce costs for approving activities and allows for better use of resources.
• Improve quality customer experience by streamlining and consolidating similar guaranteed loan programs into a client-driven consolidated regulation.
• Advance economic development and access to capital by reducing regulatory complexities and redundancies.
• Improve operational efficiencies and cross-program coordination (oneRD) by enabling staff to learn all RD guaranteed loan programs using one regulation
• Enable RD to integrate innovation in the delivery of loan guarantees and align with industry lending practices
• Create a regulation that paves the way for modern processing and servicing to improve portfolio management
Established in 1903, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) is one of the oldest Cabinet-level agencies in the Federal Government. Commerce's mission is to create the conditions for economic growth and opportunity by promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, competitiveness, and environmental stewardship. Commerce has 12 operating units, which are responsible for managing a diverse portfolio of programs and services, ranging from trade promotion and economic development assistance to broadband and the National Weather Service.
Commerce touches Americans daily, in many ways—making possible the daily weather reports and survey research; facilitating technology that all of us use in the workplace and in the home each day; supporting the development, gathering, and transmission of information essential to competitive business; enabling the diversity of companies and goods found in America's and the world's marketplace; and supporting environmental and economic health for the communities in which Americans live.
Commerce has a clear and compelling vision for itself, for its role in the Federal Government, and for its roles supporting the American people, now and in the future. To achieve this vision, Commerce works in partnership with businesses, universities, communities, and workers to:
□ Innovate by creating new ideas through cutting-edge science and technology from advances in
□ Support entrepreneurship and commercialization by enabling community development and strengthening minority businesses and small manufacturers;
□ Maintain U.S. economic competitiveness in the global marketplace by promoting exports, ensuring a level playing field for U.S. businesses, and ensuring that technology transfer is consistent with our nation's economic and security interests;
□ Provide effective management and stewardship of our nation's resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic opportunities; and
□ Make informed policy decisions and enable better understanding of the economy by providing accurate economic and demographic data.
Commerce is a vital resource base, a tireless advocate, and Cabinet-level voice for job creation. The Regulatory Plan tracks the most important regulations that implement these policy and program priorities, as well as new efforts by the Department to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens on external stakeholders.
The vast majority of Commerce's programs and activities do not involve regulation. Of Commerce's 12 primary operating units, only three bureaus will be planning actions that are considered the “most important” significant pre-regulatory or regulatory actions for FY 2019. During the next year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) plans to publish five rulemaking actions that are designated as Regulatory Plan actions. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office will each publish one rulemaking action designated as Regulatory Plan actions. Further information on these actions is provided below.
Commerce has a long-standing policy to prohibit the issuance of any regulation that discriminates on the basis of race, religion, gender, or any other suspect category and requires that all regulations be written so as to be understandable to those affected by them. The Secretary also requires that Commerce afford the public the maximum possible opportunity to participate in Departmental rulemakings, even where public participation is not required by law.
Commerce has implemented Executive Order 13771 working through its Regulatory Reform Task Force established under Executive Order 13777 to identify and prioritize deregulatory actions that each bureau within the Department can take to reduce and remove regulatory burdens on stakeholders.
In Fiscal Year 2019, Commerce expects to publish [7] regulatory actions and [59] deregulatory actions, far exceeding the requirement under Executive Order 13771 to publish two deregulatory actions for every one regulatory action. To that end, Commerce may have other deregulatory actions to implement that do not currently appear in the agenda.
Commerce, through NOAA, has a unique role in promoting stewardship of the global environment through effective management of the Nation's marine and coastal resources and in monitoring and predicting changes in the Earth's environment, thus linking trade, development, and technology with environmental issues. NOAA has the primary Federal responsibility for providing sound scientific observations, assessments, and forecasts of environmental phenomena on which resource management, adaptation, and other societal decisions can be made.
NOAA establishes and administers Federal policy for the conservation and management of the Nation's oceanic, coastal, and atmospheric resources. It provides a variety of essential environmental and climate services vital to public safety and to the Nation's economy, such as weather forecasts, drought forecasts, and storm warnings. It is a source of objective information on the state of the environment. NOAA plays the lead role in achieving Commerce's goal of promoting stewardship by providing assessments of the global environment.
Recognizing that economic growth must go hand-in-hand with environmental stewardship, Commerce, through NOAA, conducts programs designed to provide a better understanding of the connections between environmental health, economics, and national security. Commerce's emphasis on “sustainable fisheries” is designed to boost long-term economic growth in a vital sector of the U.S. economy while conserving the resources in the public trust and minimizing any economic dislocation necessary to ensure long-term economic growth. Commerce is where business and environmental interests intersect, and the classic debate on the use of natural resources is transformed into a “win-win” situation for the environment and the economy.
Three of NOAA's major components, the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS), the National Ocean Service (NOS), and the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), exercise regulatory authority.
NMFS oversees the management and conservation of the Nation's marine fisheries; protects marine mammals and Endangered Species Act-listed marine and anadromous species; and promotes economic development of the U.S. fishing industry. NOS assists the coastal States in their management of land and ocean resources in their coastal zones, including estuarine research reserves; manages the national marine sanctuaries; monitors marine pollution; and directs the national program for deep-seabed minerals and ocean thermal energy. NESDIS administers the civilian weather satellite program and licenses private organizations to operate commercial land-remote sensing satellite systems.
In the environmental stewardship area, NOAA's goals include: Rebuilding and maintaining strong U.S. fisheries by using market-based tools and ecosystem approaches to management; conserving, protecting, and recovering marine mammals and Endangered Species Act-listed marine and anadromous species while still allowing for economic and recreational opportunities; promoting healthy coastal ecosystems by ensuring that economic development is managed in ways that maintain biodiversity and long-term productivity for sustained use; and modernizing navigation and positioning services. In the environmental assessment and prediction area, goals include: Understanding the impacts of a changing climate and communicating that understanding to government and private sector stakeholders enabling them to adapt; continually improving the National Weather Service; implementing reliable seasonal and interannual climate forecasts to guide economic planning; providing science-based policy advice on options to deal with very long-term (decadal to centennial) changes in the environment; and advancing and improving short-term warning and forecast services for the entire environment.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
The FMCs provide a forum for public debate and, using the best scientific information available, make the judgments needed to determine optimum yield on a fishery-by-fishery basis. Optional management measures are examined and selected in accordance with the national standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This process, including the selection of the preferred management measures, constitutes the development, in simplified form, of an FMP. The FMP, together with draft implementing regulations and supporting documentation, is submitted to NMFS for review against the national standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in other provisions of the Act, and other applicable laws. The same process applies to amending an existing approved FMP.
FMPs address a variety of issues including maximizing fishing opportunities on healthy stocks, rebuilding overfished stocks, and addressing gear conflicts. One of the problems that FMPs may address is preventing overcapitalization (preventing excess fishing capacity) of fisheries. This may be resolved by market-based systems such as catch shares, which permit shareholders to harvest a quantity of fish and which can be traded on the open market. Harvest limits based on the best available scientific information, whether as a total fishing limit for a species in a fishery or as a share assigned to each vessel participant, enable stressed stocks to rebuild. Other measures include staggering fishing seasons or limiting gear types to avoid gear conflicts on the fishing grounds and establishing seasonal and area closures to protect fishery stocks.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) provides the authority for the conservation and management of marine mammals under U.S. jurisdiction. It expressly prohibits, with certain exceptions, the intentional take of marine mammals. The MMPA allows, upon request, the incidental take of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) provides for the conservation of species that are determined to be “endangered” or “threatened,” and the conservation of the ecosystems on which these species depend. The ESA authorizes both NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to jointly administer the provisions of the ESA. NMFS manages marine and “anadromous” species, and FWS manages land and freshwater species. Together, NMFS and FWS work to protect critically imperiled species from extinction. Of the approximately 720 listed species found in part or entirely in the United States and its waters, NMFS has jurisdiction over nearly 100 species. NMFS' rulemaking actions are focused on determining whether any species under its responsibility is an endangered or threatened species and whether those species must be added to the list of protected species. NMFS is also responsible for designating, reviewing, and revising critical habitat for any listed species. In addition, under the ESA, Federal agencies consult with NMFS on any proposed action authorized, funded, or carried out by that agency that may affect listed species or designated critical habitat, or that may affect proposed species or critical habitat. These interagency consultations are designed to assist Federal agencies in fulfilling their duty to ensure Federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, while still allowing Federal agencies to fulfill their respective missions (
While most of the rulemakings undertaken by NOAA do not rise to the level necessary to be included in Commerce's regulatory plan, NMFS is undertaking five actions that rise to the level of “most important” of Commerce's significant regulatory actions and thus are included in this year's regulatory plan. A description of the five regulatory plan actions is provided below.
Additionally, NMFS is undertaking a series of rulemakings that are considered deregulatory, as defined by Executive Order 13771. Such actions directly benefit the regulated community by increasing access, providing more economic opportunity, reducing costs, and/or increasing flexibility. Specific examples of such actions are the Commerce Trusted Trader Program and modifications to the Fisheries Finance Program, as described below. Other examples include rulemakings implementing regional Fishery Management Council actions that alleviate or reduce previous requirements.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) advances U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic objectives by maintaining and strengthening adaptable, efficient, and effective export control and treaty compliance systems as well as by administering programs to prioritize certain contracts to promote the national defense and to protect and enhance the defense industrial base.
BIS administers four sets of regulations. The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) regulate exports and reexports to protect national security, foreign policy, and short supply interests. The EAR also regulates U.S. persons' participation in certain boycotts administered by foreign governments. The National Security Industrial Base Regulations provide for prioritization of certain contracts and allocations of resources to promote the national defense, require reporting of foreign Government-imposed offsets in defense sales, provide for surveys to assess the capabilities of the industrial base to support the national defense and address the effect of imports on the defense industrial base. The Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations implement declaration, reporting, and on-site inspection requirements in the private sector necessary to meet United States treaty obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. The Additional Protocol Regulations implement similar requirements with respect to an agreement between the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
BIS also has an enforcement component with nine offices covering the United States. BIS export control officers are also stationed at several U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. BIS works with other U.S. Government agencies to promote coordinated U.S. Government efforts in export controls and other programs. BIS participates in U.S. Government efforts to strengthen multilateral export control regimes and
BIS maintains the EAR, including the Commerce Control List (CCL). The CCL describes commodities, software, and technology that are subject to licensing requirements for specific reasons for control. The Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), maintains the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), including the United States Munitions List (USML), which describes defense articles subject to State's licensing jurisdiction.
In Fiscal Year 2019, BIS plans to publish a final rule describing how articles the President has determined no longer warrant control under USML Category I (Firearms, Close Assault Weapons and Combat Shotguns), Category II (Guns and Armament), and Category III (Ammunition/Ordnance) would be controlled on the CCL and by the EAR. This final rule will be published in conjunction with a DDTC final rule that would amend the list of articles controlled by those USML Categories to describe more precisely items warranting continued control on that list.
The changes described in these final rules will be based on a review of those categories by the Department of Defense, which worked with the Departments of State and Commerce in preparing the amendments. As with the proposed rules that were published in Fiscal Year 2018, the review for the final rule will be focused on ensuring that the agencies have identified the types of articles that are now controlled on the USML that are either (i) inherently military and otherwise warrant control on the USML or (ii) if of a type common to non-military firearms applications, possess parameters or characteristics that provide a critical military or intelligence advantage to the United States, and are almost exclusively available from the United States. If an article satisfies one or both of those criteria, the article will remain on the USML. If an article does not satisfy either criterion, it will be identified in the new Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) included in the BIS proposed rule. Thus, the scope of the items that will be described in the final rule will essentially be commercial items widely available in retail outlets and less sensitive military items.
The firearms and other items described in the proposed rule are widely used for sporting applications, and BIS will not “de-control” these items in the final rule. BIS would require licenses to export or reexport to any country a firearm or other weapon that would be added to the CCL. Rather than decontrolling firearms and other items, BIS, working with the Departments of Defense and State, is trying to reduce the procedural burdens and costs of export compliance on the U.S. firearms industry while allowing the U.S. Government to control firearms appropriately and to make better use of its export control resources.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) mission is to foster innovation, competitiveness and economic growth, domestically and abroad by delivering high quality and timely examination of patent and trademark applications, guiding domestic and international intellectual property policy, and delivering intellectual property information and education worldwide.
USPTO is the Federal agency for granting U.S. patents and registering trademarks. In doing this, the USPTO fulfills the mandate of Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the Constitution that the legislative branch “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” The USPTO registers trademarks based on the commerce clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). Under this system of protection, American industry has flourished. New products have been invented, new uses for old ones discovered, and employment opportunities created for millions of Americans. The strength and vitality of the U.S. economy depends directly on effective mechanisms that protect new ideas and investments in innovation and creativity. The continued demand for patents and trademarks underscores the ingenuity of American inventors and entrepreneurs. The USPTO is at the cutting edge of the nation's technological progress and achievement.
The USPTO advises the President of the United States, the Secretary of Commerce, and U.S. government agencies on intellectual property (IP) policy, protection, and enforcement; and promotes the stronger and more effective IP protection around the world. The USPTO furthers effective IP protection for U.S. innovators and entrepreneurs worldwide by working with other agencies to secure strong IP provisions in free trade and other international agreements. It also provides training, education, and capacity building programs designed to foster respect for IP and encourage the development of strong IP enforcement regimes by U.S. trading partners. USPTO administers regulations located at title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations concerning its patent and trademark services, and the other functions it performs.
The changes described in this rule and in the State Department's companion rule on Categories I, II, and III of the USML are based on a review of those categories by the Department of Defense, which worked with the Departments of State and Commerce in preparing the amendments. The review was focused on identifying the types of articles that are now controlled on the USML that are either (i) inherently military and otherwise warrant control on the USML or (ii) if of a type common to non-military firearms applications, possess parameters or characteristics that provide a critical military or intelligence advantage to the United States, and are almost exclusively available from the United States. If an article satisfies one or both of those criteria, the article remains on the USML. If an article does not satisfy either criterion, it has been identified in the new Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) included in this proposed rule. Thus, the scope of the items described in this proposed rule is essentially commercial items widely available in retail outlets and less sensitive military items.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest Federal department, employing over 1.3 million military personnel and 742,000 civilians with operations all over the world. DoD's enduring mission is to provide combat-credible military forces needed to deter war and protect the security of our nation. In support of this mission, DoD adheres to a strategy where a more lethal force, strong alliances and partnerships, American technological innovation, and a culture of performance will generate a decisive and sustained United States military advantage. Because of this expansive and diversified mission and reach, DoD regulations can address a broad range of matters and have an impact on varied members of the public, as well as a multitude of other federal agencies.
The regulatory and deregulatory actions identified in this Regulatory Plan embody the core of DoD's regulatory priorities for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 and help support or impact the Secretary's three lines of efforts to: (1) Build a more lethal force; (2) strengthen alliances and attract new partners; and (3) reform the Department for greater performance and affordability. These actions originate within three of DoD's
The Department's regulatory program strives to be responsive, efficient, and transparent. DoD adheres to the general principles set forth in Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” dated October 4, 1993, by promulgating only those regulations that are required by law, necessary to interpret the law, or are made necessary by compelling public need. By following this regulatory philosophy, the Department's regulatory program also compliments and advances the Secretary's third line of effort—to reform the Department for greater performance and affordability.
The Department is also fully committed to implementing and sustaining regulatory reform in accordance with Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” dated January 30, 2017, and Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” dated February 24, 2017. These reform efforts support DoD's goals to eliminate outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective regulations; account for the currency and legitimacy of each of the Department's regulations; and ultimately reduce regulatory burden and costs placed on the American people. Specifically in support of DoD's reform efforts, DoD appointed a Regulatory Reform Officer to oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies. DoD also established a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force) to review and evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to the Agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification, consistent with applicable law.
DoD is implementing its reform efforts in three general phases:
•
•
•
In FY 2019, based primarily on the ongoing work of the Task Force, DoD expects to publish more deregulatory actions than regulatory actions. Exact figures are not yet available as the regulations reported in this edition of the Unified Agenda are still under evaluation for classification under Executive Order 13771. Additionally, the Task Force will continue working to execute directives under Executive Orders 13783 and 13807 to streamline its regulatory process and permitting reviews.
In addition to reform efforts, DoD is also mindful of the importance of international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and trade policy, as described in Executive Order 13609, “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation” (May 1, 2012). For example, DoD, along with the Departments of State and Commerce, engages with other countries in the Wassenaar Arrangement, Nuclear Suppliers Group, Australia Group, and Missile Technology Control Regime through which the international community develops a common list of items that should be subject to export controls. DoD has been a key participant in the Administration's Export Control Reform effort that resulted in a complete overhaul of the U.S. Munitions List and fundamental changes to the Commerce Control List. New controls have facilitated transfers of goods and technologies to allies and partners while helping prevent transfers to countries of national security and proliferation concern. In this context, DoD will continue to assess new and emerging technologies to ensure items that provide critical military and intelligence capabilities are properly controlled on international export control regime lists.
As stated above, OUSD (A&S), OUSD (P&R), and the Department of the Army will be planning actions that are considered the most important significant DoD regulatory actions for FY 2019. During the next year, these DoD Components plan to publish 15 rulemaking actions that are designated as significant actions. Further information on these actions is provided below.
DPC is responsible for all contracting and procurement policy matters in the Department and uses the Defense Acquisition Regulations System (DARS) to develop and maintain acquisition rules and to facilitate the acquisition workforce as they acquire goods and services. For this component, DoD is highlighting the following rules:
This rule proposes to amend the DFARS to implement section 888 of the NDAA for FY 2017. Section 888 requires DoD to justify when a solicitation includes “brand name or equal” specifications, which could limit competition by unnecessarily restricting offerors to a limited set of specifications. Currently, if the Government intends to procure specific “brand name” products, the contracting officer must prepare a justification and obtain the appropriate approval based on the estimated dollar value of the contracts. However, a justification is not required to use “brand name or equal” descriptions in a solicitation. To implement section 888, this rule proposes to amend the DFARS to require contracting officers to obtain an approval of a justification for use of “brand name or equal” descriptions, which would then be posted with the covered solicitation. It is expected that this rule will both promote transparency with industry by disclosing the basis for the Government's decision to limit competition and, in turn, present an opportunity to increase competition.
This rule proposes to amend the DFARS to raise the threshold for determining when a contractor purchasing system review (CPSR) is required. The Government will conduct
This rule proposes to amend the DFARS to clarify the entity to which contractors submit Summary Subcontract Reports in the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) and to clarify the entity that acknowledges receipt of, or rejects, the reports in eSRS. This rule streamlines the submission and review of Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs) for DoD contractors and brings the DFARS into compliance with changes in the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Instead of submitting multiple SSRs to various departments and agencies within DoD, contractors with individual subcontracting plans will submit a single, consolidated SSR in eSRS at the DoD level. The consolidated SSR will be acknowledged or rejected in eSRS at the DoD level.
The mission of DoD's health program is to enhance the Department of Defense and our Nation's security by providing health support for the full range of military operations and sustaining the health of all those entrusted to our care by creating a world-class health care system that supports the military mission by fostering, protecting, sustaining and restoring health.
TRICARE is the health care program for uniformed service members including active duty and retired members of the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Coast Guard, the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service and the Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association and their families around the world. It serves 9.5 million individuals worldwide. It continues to offer an increasingly integrated and comprehensive health care plan, refining and enhancing both benefits and programs in a manner consistent with the law, industry standard of care, and best practices, to meet the changing needs of its beneficiaries. The program's goal is to increase access to health care services, improve health care quality, and control health care costs.
For this component, DoD is highlighting the following rule:
This final rule implements the primary features of section 701 and partially implements several other sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (NDAA-17). The rule makes significant changes to the TRICARE program, especially to the health maintenance organization (HMO)-like health plan known as TRICARE Prime; to the preferred provider organization (PPO) health plan previously known as TRICARE Extra and replaced by TRICARE Select; and to the third health care option known as TRICARE Standard, which was terminated December 31, 2017, and is also replaced by TRICARE Select.
The statute also adopts a new health plan enrollment system under TRICARE and new provisions for access to care, high value services, preventive care, and healthy lifestyles. In implementing section 701 and partially implementing several other sections of NDAA-17, this rule advances all four components of the Military Health System's quadruple aim of improved readiness, better care, better health, and lower cost. The aim of improved readiness is served by reinforcing the vital role of the TRICARE Prime health plan to refer patients, particularly those needing specialty care, to military medical treatment facilities (MTFs) in order to ensure that military health care providers maintain clinical currency and proficiency in their professional fields.
The objective of better care is enhanced by a number of improvements in beneficiary access to health care services, including increased geographical coverage for the TRICARE Select provider network, reduced administrative hurdles for TRICARE Prime enrollees to obtain urgent care services and specialty care referrals, and promotion of high value services and medications. The goal of better health is advanced by expanding TRICARE coverage of preventive care services, treatment of obesity, high-value care, and telehealth. Finally, the aim of lower cost is furthered by refining cost-benefit assessments for TRICARE plan specifications that remain under DoD's discretion and adding flexibilities to incentivize high-value health care services.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), is a major Army command made up of some 37,000 civilian and military personnel, making it one of the world's largest public engineering, design, and construction management agencies. Although generally associated with flood and coastal storm damage reduction, commercial navigation, and aquatic ecosystem restoration in the United States, USACE is involved in a wide range of public works throughout the world.
The USACE's mission is to “Deliver vital public and military engineering services; partnering in peace and war to strengthen our Nation's security, energize the economy and reduce risks from disasters.” The most visible missions include:
• Water resources development activities including flood risk management, navigation, aquatic ecosystem restoration, recreation, emergency response, and environmental stewardship
• Design and construction management of military facilities for the Army, Air Force, Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve and other Defense and Federal agencies.
For this component, DoD is highlighting the following rules.
In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army (“the agencies”) published the “Clean Water Rule: Definition of `Waters of the United States' ” (80 FR 37054, June 29, 2015). On October 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed the 2015 rule nationwide pending further action of the court. On February 28, 2017, the President signed Executive Order 13778, “Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the `Waters of the United States' Rule” which instructed the agencies to review the 2015 rule and rescind or replace it as appropriate and consistent with law. On July 27, 2017,
In Step 2 (Revised Definition of `Waters of the United States'), the agencies plan to propose a new definition that would replace the prior regulations and the approach in the CWR2015 Rule. In determining the possible new approach, the agencies are considering defining “navigable waters” in a manner consistent with the plurality opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia in the Rapanos decision, as instructed by Executive Order 13778, “Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the `Waters of the United States' Rule.”
On February 6, 2018, the agencies issued a final rule adding an applicability date to the CWR2015 Rule of February 6, 2020, to provide continuity and certainty for regulated entities, the States and Tribes, and the public while the agencies conduct STEP 2 of the rulemaking. Until the new definition is finalized, the agencies will continue to implement the regulatory definition in place prior to the CWR consistent with Supreme Court decisions and practice, and as informed by applicable agency guidance documents.
The USACE recognizes the sovereign status of Indian tribes (as defined by Executive Order 13175) and our obligation for pre-decisional government-to-government consultation, as established through and confirmed by the U.S. Constitution, treaties, statutes, executive orders, judicial decisions, and Presidential documents and policies, on proposed regulatory actions (
The USACE is updating and clarifying its policies governing the use of its reservoir projects for domestic, municipal and industrial water supply pursuant to Section 6 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 and the Water Supply Act of 1958 (WSA). The USACE intends through this rulemaking to explain and improve its interpretations and practices under these statutes. The rule is intended to enhance the USACE's ability to cooperate with State and local interests in the development of water supplies in connection with the operation of its reservoirs for federal purposes as authorized by Congress, to facilitate water supply uses of USACE reservoirs by others as contemplated under applicable law, and to avoid interfering with lawful uses of water by any entity when the USACE exercises its discretionary authority under either section 6 or the WSA. The rule would apply only to reservoir projects operated by the USACE, not to projects operated by other federal or non-federal entities, and it would not impose requirements on any other entity, alter existing contractual arrangements at USACE reservoirs, or require operational changes at any Corps reservoir.
The USACE is proposing to update its regulations for USACE's natural disaster procedures pursuant to Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1941, as amended (33 U.S.C. 701n), commonly referred to as Public Law 84-99. The revisions are necessary to incorporate elements of the Water Resources and Reform Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014), and update procedures concerning USACE authority to address disaster preparedness, response, and recovery activities. The revisions relating to WRRDA 2014 include the authority to implement modifications to Flood Control Works (FCW) and Coastal Storm Risk Management Projects (formerly referred to as Hurricane and Shore Protection Projects); and the authority to implement nonstructural alternatives to rehabilitation, if requested by the non-federal sponsor. Other significant changes under consideration include revisions to the eligibility criteria for rehabilitation assistance for FCW, an increase to the minimum repair cost for FCW projects, revised policies to address endangered species and vegetation management during rehabilitation, and a change in the cost share for emergency measures constructed using permanent construction standards.
This rule proposes to amend the regulations governing the review and approval process for mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs, which are used to provide compensatory mitigation that offsets losses of jurisdictional waters and wetlands authorized by Department of the Army permits. Those regulations also include time frames for certain steps in the mitigation bank and in-lieu fee program review and approval process. The review and approval process for mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs includes an opportunity for public and agency review and comment, as well as a second review by an interagency review team. The interagency review team consists of federal, tribal, state, and local agencies that review documentation and provide the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) with advice on the establishment and management of mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs. The USACE is reviewing the review and approval process and the interagency review team process in particular to determine whether and how it can enhance the efficiency of those processes. An increase in efficiency could result in savings to the public if it results in similar or improved outcomes with shorter review times and thereby reduce risk and uncertainty for mitigation bank and in-lieu fee program sponsors and the costs they incur in obtaining mitigation banking or in-lieu fee program instruments. An increase in review efficiency could also decrease the resources other federal, tribal, state, and local agencies expend in reviewing these activities, attending meetings, participating in site visits, and
The USACE issues nationwide permits to authorize specific categories of activities in jurisdictional waters and wetlands that have no more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects. The issuance and reissuance of nationwide permits must be done every five years to continue the Nationwide Permit Program. The nationwide permits were last issued on December 21, 2016, and expire on March 18, 2022. On October 25, 2017, the USACE issued a report to meet the requirements of Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth. In that report, the USACE recommended changes to nine nationwide permits that authorize activities related to domestic energy production and use, including oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy sources, as well as renewable energy sources such as flowing water, wind, and solar energy. This rulemaking action would seek to review and, if appropriate, modify those nine nationwide permits in accordance with the opportunities identified in the report in order to reduce burdens on the public. In addition, the Corps is considering modifying an additional 23 nationwide permits to allow federal agencies to select and use nationwide permits without additional USACE review. This rulemaking action would help simplify the nationwide permit authorization process.
1. Subsection 3029(a) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA) (Pub. L. 113-121) granted the Chief of Engineers authority, under certain circumstances, to make modifications to flood control and hurricane or shore protections works damaged during flood or coastal storms events, as well as the authority to implement nonstructural alternatives in the repair and restoration of hurricane or shore protection works.
2. Subsection 3029(b) of WRRDA 2014 directed the Secretary of the Army to undertake a review of implementation of Public Law 84-99 to ensure the safety of affected communities to future flooding and storm events; the resiliency of water resources development projects to future flooding and storm events; the long-term cost-effectiveness of water resources development projects that provide flood control and hurricane and storm damage reduction benefits; and the policy goals and objectives that were outlined by the President as a response to recent
3. Section 3011 of WRRDA 2014 mandated that a levee system shall remain eligible for rehabilitation assistance under Public Law 84-99 as long as the system sponsor continues to make satisfactory progress, as determined by the Secretary of the Army, on an approved system wide improvement framework or letter of intent.
4. Section 1176 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (WRDA) (Pub. L. 114-322, title I) provided an express definition of nonstructural alternatives, as that term is used in Public Law 84-99, and authorized the Chief of Engineers, under certain circumstances, to increase the level of protection of flood control or hurricane or shore protection works when conducting repair or restoration activities to such works under Public Law 84-99.
In implementing section 701 and partially implementing several other sections of NDAA-17, this interim final rule advances all four components of the Military Health System's quadruple aim of stronger readiness, better care, healthier people, and smarter spending. The aim of stronger readiness is served by reinforcing the vital role of the TRICARE Prime health plan to refer patients, particularly those needing specialty care, to military medical treatment facilities in order to ensure that military health care providers maintain clinical currency and proficiency in their professional fields. The objective of better care is enhanced by a number of improvements in beneficiary access to health care services, including geographical coverage for the TRICARE Select provider network, reduced administrative hurdles for TRICARE Prime enrollees to obtain urgent care services and specialty care referrals, and promotion of high-value services and medications and telehealth services. The goal of healthier people is advanced by expanding TRICARE coverage of preventive care services and prevention and treatment of obesity. And the aim of smarter spending is furthered by sharpening cost-benefit assessments for TRICARE plan specifications that remain under the DoD's discretion.
The U.S. Department of Education (Department) supports States, local communities, institutions of higher education, and families in improving education and other services nationwide in order to ensure that all Americans, including those with disabilities, receive a high-quality education and are prepared for high-quality employment. We provide leadership and financial assistance pertaining to education and related services at all levels to a wide range of stakeholders and individuals, including State educational and other agencies, local school districts, providers of early learning programs, elementary and secondary schools, institutions of higher education, career and technical schools, nonprofit organizations, postsecondary students, members of the public, families, and many others. These efforts are helping to ensure that all children and students from pre-kindergarten through grade 12 will be ready for, and succeed in, postsecondary education or employment, and that students attending postsecondary institutions are prepared for a profession or career.
We also vigorously monitor and enforce the implementation of Federal civil rights laws in educational programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance, and support innovative programs, research and evaluation activities, technical assistance, and the dissemination of data, research, and evaluation findings to improve the quality of education.
Overall, the laws, regulations, and programs that the Department administers will affect nearly every American during his or her life. Indeed, in the 2018-19 school year, about 57 million students will attend an estimated 133,000 elementary and secondary schools in approximately 13,600 districts, and about 20 million students will enroll in degree-granting postsecondary schools. All of these students may benefit from some degree of financial assistance or support from the Department.
In developing and implementing regulations, guidance, technical assistance, evaluations, data gathering and reporting, and monitoring related to our programs, we are committed to working closely with affected persons and groups. We know that improving education starts with allowing greater decision-making authority at the State and local levels while also recognizing that the ultimate form of local control occurs when parents and students are empowered to choose their own educational paths forward. Our core mission includes this empowerment of local education, serving the most vulnerable, and facilitating equal access for all, to ensure all students receive a high-quality education, and complete it with a well-considered and attainable path to a sustainable career.
Toward these ends, we work with a broad range of interested parties and the general public, including families, students, and educators; State, local, and Tribal governments; other Federal agencies; and neighborhood groups, community-based early learning programs, elementary and secondary schools, colleges, rehabilitation service providers, adult education providers, professional associations, advocacy organizations, businesses, and labor organizations.
If we determine that it is necessary to develop regulations, we seek public participation at the key stages in the rulemaking process. We invite the public to submit comments on all proposed regulations through the internet or by regular mail. We also continue to seek greater public participation in our rulemaking activities through the use of transparent and interactive rulemaking procedures and new technologies.
To facilitate the public's involvement, we participate in the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), an electronic single Government-wide access point (
We are committed to reducing burden with regard to regulations, guidance, and information collections, reducing the burden on information providers involved in our programs, and making information easily accessible to the public. To that end and consistent with Executive Order 13777 (“Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda”), we are in the process of reviewing all of our regulations and guidance to modify and rescind items that: (1) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation; (2) are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; (3) impose costs that exceed benefits; (4) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies; (5) are inconsistent with the requirements of section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note), or the guidance issued pursuant to that provision, in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or (6) derive from or implement Executive orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.
The following are the key regulatory and deregulatory rulemaking actions the Department is planning for the coming year. We provide below information about the potential costs and benefits for several of these rulemaking actions, including whether they would be considered regulatory or deregulatory actions under Executive Order 13771. For rulemakings that we are just beginning now, we have limited information about their potential costs and benefits and cannot estimate at this time whether they would be considered regulatory or deregulatory actions.
The Department will continue its work to complete two rulemakings in the area of higher education and Federal Student Aid under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The Department has completed negotiated rulemaking for these two rulemakings, described below, and we are revisiting these regulations with the goals of alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens and ensuring appropriate protections for students, institutions,
The Department recently published new proposed regulations that would govern the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program regarding the standard and the process for determining whether a borrower has a defense to repayment on a loan based on an act or omission of a school. We also have proposed to amend other sections of the Direct Loan Program regulations, including those that codify our current policy regarding the impact that discharges have on the 150 percent Direct Subsidized Loan Limit and the Student Assistance General Provisions regulations providing the financial responsibility standards and disclosure requirements for schools. In addition, we proposed to amend the discharge provisions in the Federal Perkins Loan, Direct Loan, and Federal Family Education Loan programs. These proposed regulations would replace those promulgated by the Department in 2016.
The Department recently proposed regulations that would rescind the Gainful Employment (GE) regulations and remove them from subparts Q and R of the Student Assistance and General Provisions in 34 CFR part 668. Under the proposed rescission, the Department would remove the provisions providing for a debt-to-earnings (D/E) rates measure to determine a gainful employment program's continuing eligibility for participation in the programs authorized by title IV of the HEA as well as certain disclosure and reporting requirements.
Additionally, the Secretary plans to initiate a new rulemaking to revise regulations related to the Secretary's recognition of accrediting agencies, including specific topics such as: The requirements of accrediting agencies in their oversight of member institutions; requirements for accrediting agencies to honor institutional mission; criteria used by the Secretary to recognize accrediting agencies, emphasizing criteria that focus on educational quality; developing a single definition for purposes of measuring and reporting job placement rates; and simplifying the process for recognition and review of accrediting agencies. The rulemaking will also cover issues such as: State authorization, to address the requirements related to programs offered through distance education or correspondence courses, including disclosures about such programs to enrolled and prospective students, and other State authorization issues; the definitions of a number of terms in the regulations governing institutional and programmatic eligibility; requirements of the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant (TEACH Grant) program, in an effort to minimize inadvertent grant-to-loan conversions and improve outcomes for TEACH Grant recipients; direct assessment programs and competency-based education; and regulations regarding the eligibility of faith-based entities to participate in the Title IV, HEA programs.
The Secretary is planning a new rulemaking to address issues under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended. In this action, we seek to clarify schools' obligations in redressing sex discrimination, including complaints of sexual misconduct, and the procedures by which they must do so.
The Department will continue its work to complete its rulemaking in the area of significant disproportionality under section 618(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In July 2018, the Department published a final rule extending the compliance date for States until July 1, 2020. We are revisiting the significant disproportionality regulations with the goal of better serving children with disabilities.
The Department anticipates issuing a number of deregulatory actions in the upcoming fiscal year. We have thus far been focusing our deregulatory efforts on eliminating outdated regulations. In many instances, our deregulatory actions are being taken because legislation has superseded our regulations. For example, we are planning to rescind a number of sections from our Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education regulations to remove outdated, superseded regulations for programs no longer administered by the Department. This deregulatory action will clarify for our stakeholders and the general public which of our regulations are still in effect. The unified agenda identifies other deregulatory actions that will provide cost savings and clarity.
Additionally, during the course of its Executive Order 13777 review, the Department's Regulatory Reform Task Force has identified a number of information collections (ICRs) as being outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective. We are currently working to discontinue these.
As stated previously, the Department is continuing its comprehensive regulatory reform efforts pursuant to Executive Order 13777, focusing on rescinding and modifying all outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective regulations, guidance, and information collections. Section 3(e) of the Executive order requires the Department, as part of this effort, to “seek input and other assistance, as permitted by law, from entities significantly affected by Federal regulations, including State, local, and tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, non-governmental organizations, and trade associations” on regulations that meet some or all of the criteria above. The Department will continue to consider public input and feedback as part of these efforts.
Over the next year, we may need to issue other regulations because of new legislation or programmatic changes. In doing so, we will follow the Principles for Regulating, which determine when and how we will regulate. Through consistent application of those principles, we have eliminated unnecessary regulations and identified situations in which major programs could be implemented without regulations or with limited regulatory action.
In deciding when to regulate, we consider the following:
• Whether regulations are essential to promote quality and equality of opportunity in education.
• Whether a demonstrated problem cannot be resolved without regulation.
• Whether regulations are necessary to provide a legally binding interpretation to resolve ambiguity.
• Whether entities or situations subject to regulation are similar enough that a uniform approach through regulation would be meaningful and do more good than harm.
• Whether regulations are needed to protect the Federal interest, that is, to ensure that Federal funds are used for their intended purpose and to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse.
In deciding how to regulate, we are mindful of the following principles:
• Regulate no more than necessary.
• Minimize burden to the extent possible, and promote multiple approaches to meeting statutory requirements if possible.
• Encourage coordination of federally funded activities with State and local reform activities.
• Ensure that the benefits justify the costs of regulating.
• To the extent possible, establish performance objectives rather than specify the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt.
• Encourage flexibility, to the extent possible and as needed to enable institutional forces to achieve desired results.
Update and revision to the regulations on State Authorization is necessary so that the Department does not inhibit innovation and competition in postsecondary education. Institutions need the regulatory flexibility to innovate and the Department is committed to ensuring program integrity with appropriate guardrails to protect students and taxpayer dollars. The focus of this rulemaking is on breaking down barriers to innovation and reducing regulatory burden while protecting students and taxpayers from unreasonable risk.
Note that, the intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee has already been published; the topics proposed for negotiation have been added to the
Further, there is no prohibition in the rulemaking process for the main committee to break-off before, during or after a session to discussion topics within their areas of expertise to propose language to the main committee.
We believe that a revision to the accreditation regulations is necessary to restore the separation of duties in responsibilities in the triad: The State Authorization, Accreditation, and the U.S. Department of Education. We believe that the accreditation regulations may contain redundancy, unnecessary duplication of oversight, and pose broad Federal overreach in measuring program quality. We also want to ensure that accreditors while measuring institutional quality do not infringe on autonomy of institutions in their missions.
Note that, the intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee has already been published; the topics proposed for negotiation have been added to the Agency Agenda Report/Unified Agenda. Further, the Department has already conducted one of three public hearings inviting comment on our
Update and revision to the outlined regulations is necessary so that the Department does not inhibit innovation and competition in postsecondary education. For example, regulations implemented regarding the credit-hour, regular and substantive interaction and institutional partnerships in instructional programs may limit innovation and inhibit student completion and graduation in the rapidly evolving postsecondary education landscape. Institutions need the regulatory flexibility to innovate and the Department is committed to ensuring program integrity with appropriate guardrails to protect students and taxpayer dollars. The focus of this rulemaking is on breaking down barriers to innovation and reducing regulatory burden while protecting students and taxpayers from unreasonable risk.
Note that, the intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee has already been published; the topics proposed for negotiation have been added to the Agency Agenda Report/Unified Agenda. Further, the Department has already conducted one of three public hearings inviting comment on our FR Notice outlining
Also, by negotiating a wide range of topics the Department risks not having the expertise necessary on the rulemaking committee to fully explore the nuances of each of the proposed topics. To account for this the Department will form two subcommittees, one directly related to direct assessment programs and competency-based education. These committees will report back to the main rulemaking committee with their reports.
Further, there is no prohibition in the rulemaking process for the main committee to break-off before, during or after a session to discussion topics within their areas of expertise to propose language to the main committee.
Note that, the intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee has already been published; the topics proposed for negotiation have been added to the Agency Agenda Report/Unified Agenda. Further, the Department has already conducted one of three public hearings inviting comment on our
Also, the Department will form two subcommittees, one specifically for faith-based entities. These committees will report back to the main rulemaking committee with their reports.
Note that, the intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee has already been published; the topics proposed for negotiation have been added to the
Further, there is no prohibition in the rulemaking process for the main committee to break-off before, during or after a session to discussion topics within their areas of expertise to propose language to the main committee.
The Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) makes vital contributions to the Nation's welfare through its activities focused on improving national security, energy supply, energy efficiency, environmental remediation, and energy research. The Department's mission is to ensure America's security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions.
Through its regulatory and deregulatory activities, the Department works to ensure it both achieves its critical mission, and implements the administration's initiative to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs as outlined in Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” As such, the Department strives to act in a prudent and financially responsible manner in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources, and manages appropriately the costs associated with private expenditures required for compliance with DOE regulations. Ultimately, DOE aims to promote meaningful regulatory burden reduction, while also achieving its regulatory objectives and meeting its statutory obligations.
DOE's regulatory and deregulatory priorities reflect the Department's efforts to achieve meaningful burden reduction while continuing to achieve the Department's statutory obligations.
DOE is engaged in a number of deregulatory activities aimed at reducing regulatory costs and burdens. These activities include amending regulations to expedite the preparation of and simplify the content of Notices of Sale for the price competitive sale of petroleum from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), which in turn will reduce the administrative burden placed on prospective bidders. Another important deregulatory action concerns modernizing the procedures for establishing energy conservation standards and test procedures as part of DOE's Appliance Program. Also, DOE published a final rule that will provide for faster approval of applications for small-scale exports of natural gas, including liquefied natural gas (LNG), from U.S. export facilities.
On January 30, 2017, the President issued E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” That Order stated the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources. The Order stated it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. Toward that end, E.O. 13771 requires, among other things, that whenever an agency proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, the agency must identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. E.O. 13771 also provides for the establishment of agency regulatory cost budgets, as identified by the Office of Management and Budget.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O. 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” That Order required that the head of each agency designate an agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO). Each RRO oversees the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable law. Further, E.O. 13777 required the establishment of a regulatory reform task force at each agency. The regulatory reform task force makes recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal, replacement, or
In implementation of both Orders, on May 30, 2017, DOE published in the
In response to the May 30, 2017, RFI, DOE received many comments recommending that DOE update and modernize its procedures for establishing energy conservation standards and test procedures for the DOE Appliance Program, otherwise known as the “Process Rule.” The current Process Rule can be found in Appendix A to Subpart C of part 430 of the Code of Federal Regulations, published on July 15, 1996. In response to stakeholder input, DOE published a RFI on December 18, 2017 (82 FR 59992), seeking comments and information from interested parties to assist DOE in identifying potential modifications to its “Process Rule.” DOE conducted a public meeting and webinar on January 9, 2018, that was widely attended by a broad spectrum of stakeholders. DOE is currently preparing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), taking into account the many suggestions from stakeholders, and is including this proposed rule as part of its 2018 Regulatory Plan. DOE has characterized this action as deregulatory.
The second deregulatory action that is part of DOE's 2018 Regulatory Plan is a rule that proposes to withdraw the revised definitions of general service lamps (GSL) and general service incandescent lamps (GSIL) that would otherwise take effect on January 1, 2020. This proposal would maintain the existing statutory definitions of GSL and GSIL currently found in the Department's regulations.
Lastly, DOE is placing one action in its Regulatory Plan: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Conventional Cooking Products (1904-AD15), even though it does not meet the Regulatory Plan criterion of “most important significant regulatory actions” of the agency. DOE has included this regulatory action for the purpose of transparency and due to the non-trivial costs of the proposed action. At the 7% and 3% discount rate the primary annualized cost of this rule could be as much as 42.6 million and 42.3 million dollars, respectively. The primary annualized benefits at the 7% and 3% discount rate have been projected to be 126 million and 178 million dollars, respectively.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for consumer conventional cooking products is $42.3 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $163.3 million in reduced operating costs.
In determining whether a standard is economically justified, DOE must consider whether the benefits of the standard exceed the burdens by, to the greatest extent practicable, considering 7 enumerated factors, including the economic impact of the standard on manufacturers. DOE uses industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the reference year through the end of the analysis period (2017 to 2049), to determine manufacturer impact. Using a real discount rate of 9.1 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products is $1,241.6 million in 2016 dollars. Under the proposed standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may experience a reduction of up to 4.7 percent of their
The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer benefits of the standards for consumer conventional cooking products ranges from $1.08 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $2.63 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for consumer conventional cooking products purchased in 2020-2049.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) carries out a wide array of activities in order to fulfill its mission of protecting and promoting the health and well-being of the American people. From supporting cutting-edge research and disease surveillance, to regulating products and facilities, to administering programs that help our citizens most in need of access to healthcare and social services, HHS's work has a clear impact on the daily life of all Americans. As the federal agency most deeply involved in more than one-sixth of the US economy, it is imperative that HHS be attentive to the costs of over-regulation. Building on the progress that HHS has made in Fiscal Year 2018, the Department will continue to find ways to clarify its regulations to ease the burden of public compliance, or to remove them where feasible to avoid unnecessarily diverting resources from the private sector while simultaneously ensuring the integrity of HHS programs.
HHS is committed to a regulatory agenda that is focused on better meeting the needs of the individuals served by its programs, informed by an understanding that excess and unclear federal regulation not only imposes serious burdens on job creation and the economy as a whole, but also that the opportunity costs from overregulation dampen provider productivity and medical product innovation, which undermines HHS's own ultimate core mission. Through its rulemakings in the coming fiscal year, HHS will take concrete steps towards reducing and streamlining its regulations and improving the transparency, flexibility, and accountability of its regulatory processes.
Since his confirmation as the twenty-fourth Secretary of Health and Human Services in January 2018, Secretary Alex Azar has focused the Department's efforts on four priorities. These initiatives—combatting the opioid crisis; increasing the affordability and accessibility of individual health insurance; tackling the high cost of prescription drugs; and moving to a value-based healthcare system—renew the substantial efforts made by the Department in these areas over the past year and a half and have the potential to deliver lasting change across America's healthcare system.
One of the most pressing public health problems of our time, the opioid crisis has steadily grown over the past several decades and is now impacting communities across the country. In addition to providing unprecedented levels of support for states, local governments, and community organizations working to combat this crisis, HHS is exploring ways to enhance our nation's response through critically examining its regulations. To reduce opioid misuse without restricting access to legitimate services, Medicaid programs can utilize several medical management techniques, including quantity limits of short-acting and long-acting opioids. The President's FY 2019 Budget includes a proposal that would establish minimum standards for Medicaid Drug Utilization Review programs. Currently, CMS does not set minimum requirements for these programs, and there is substantial variation in how states approach this issue. Establishing minimum standards would not only help increase oversight of opioid prescriptions and dispensing in Medicaid, but would save the program an estimated $245 million over 10 years.
Additionally, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is considering updating its regulations governing medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders (OUD) by deleting outdated provisions and revising reporting requirements for providers with waivers to treat up to 275 patients with OUD. SAMHSA will also provide guidance and consider additional changes to 42 CFR part 2 that can foster further alignment with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Furthermore, although many covered entities believe that the HIPAA Privacy Rule precludes such disclosures, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) plans to propose a rule clarifying the Privacy Rule provisions most applicable to information sharing with family members or others when patients are incapacitated. This would reduce uncertainties about the ability of covered entities to disclose patient information to family members, friends, or others best positioned to help individuals suffering with a substance use disorder or serious mental illness.
In addition, strengthening program integrity with respect to subsidy payments in the individual markets is a top priority of this Administration. In furtherance of that goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will publish an Exchange Program Integrity rule focusing on ensuring that eligible enrollees receive the correct advanced payments of the premium tax credit, conducting effective and efficient oversight of State-Based Exchanges, and protecting the interests of taxpayers, consumers, and the financial integrity of Federally Facilitated Exchanges. CMS, through its annual Payment Notice for the Exchanges, will also emphasize deregulation and increasing flexibility for states and issuers. CMS will continue to work with the Tri-Departments to explore allowing more flexibility in the availability of health plans in the individual and small group markets, as well as carrying out the instructions in the President's October 12, 2017, Executive Order to consider expanding the use of health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs).
HHS' forthcoming report on promoting competition and choice will also inform HHS' efforts in this area and help drive positive change.
These initiatives will help restore market forces to ensure consumers have plans to choose from that meet their needs.
In May 2018, Secretary Azar unveiled the President's blueprint to tackle the high cost of prescription drugs,
Over the years, it has become increasingly apparent that the United States' fee-for-service payment system does not incentivize innovative therapies and intelligent treatment plans for patients. Previous Congresses and administrations have attempted to alleviate these problems through patchwork attempts at introducing innovative payment models. Now, under Secretary Azar's leadership, HHS will undertake efforts to comprehensively address this issue and attempt to rebuild our healthcare system into one that truly incentivizes effective, efficient patient care by paying for value. As an early step in this effort, CMS plans to propose regulatory revisions to address the impact of the physician self-referral (commonly known as “Stark”) law and encourage coordinated care. Additionally, OCR will be examining the HIPAA rules for obstacles that may limit or discourage coordinated care or otherwise impose regulatory burdens that may impede the transformation to value-based healthcare, without providing commensurate privacy or security protections for patients' protected health information (PHI). HHS' forthcoming report on promoting competition and choice will also inform HHS' efforts in this area and help drive positive change.
In addition to these four priorities, HHS has been comprehensively reviewing its regulations to find ways to reduce burdens on states, grantees, industries, and individuals. Regulatory burden can result from a variety of sources, including reporting requirements, outdated restrictions, requirements and/or conditions not required by the authorizing statutes, and a lack of clear regulatory guidelines. HHS is committed to streamlining and clarifying its regulations to reduce unnecessary burden while continuing to protect the public health and to meet the human services needs of the American people.
The Department recognizes the burden that requirements for many of its programs place on states, territories, tribes, local governments, industry, providers and facilities, caseworkers, grant recipients, and individuals. HHS plans to actively engage stakeholders in transparent, deliberative processes to ensure that the Department reduces burden while continuing to administer high-quality programs. For example, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on its proposal to streamline the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), which doubled reporting requirements for states and tribes. Through careful consideration of all comments submitted by the public to its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued in March 2018, ACF believes it can streamline the 2016 Rule so that state and tribal IV-E agencies are able to devote less time and fewer resources to administrative work and to redirect those efforts to the children they serve.
In addition to minimizing regulatory burden, HHS realizes that many of its regulations may contain provisions that are outdated, obsolete, or otherwise not applicable to the current environment. HHS has resolved to reform its processes so that those providing care and other services to Americans are able to thrive within the state and federal regulatory environment. As an early step in this broader effort, CMS plans to issue a proposed rule that will remove unnecessary and outdated requirements from the conditions of participation for the Medicare and Medicaid programs for Long-Term Care facilities. Currently, these requirements often impede the delivery of quality care and divert resources away from facility residents.
As part of efforts to streamline regulation, in some cases, regulation is necessary in order to make HHS's processes transparent and predictable. This year, FDA plans to continue work on needed implementing regulations for its tobacco program. Rulemaking is needed to clarify for industry the submission and review processes for various review pathways as part of a comprehensive framework to regulate nicotine and tobacco and advance the public health. In addition, FDA is updating important rules for medical device applications so the rules reflect risk-based and least burdensome pathways to market for devices, including new and innovative devices. These rules will fill gaps to ensure that manufacturers in these sectors know how to bring innovative products to market that may save lives or reduce health risks. FDA intends to continue rulemaking this fiscal year to fill these regulatory gaps so that these processes become more fair, efficient, and predictable.
Religious and faith-based organizations and individuals have historically played an important role in providing needed health care and human services. However, regulatory and other burdens on religious freedom and conscience that discourage such organizations and individuals from participating in HHS programs have been often overlooked in recent years. HHS has taken a number of steps to rectify the situation in the past year and plans to continue work to ensure that HHS's programs respect religious liberty and conscience—and to relieve burden on the exercise of religion and conscience. In order to adequately protect these First Amendment and statutory rights, HHS plans to complete a rulemaking to implement and enforce a number of HHS-specific conscience laws and protections, in order to help ensure that individuals participating in HHS-funded health programs are aware of their conscience rights, that recipients of HHS funds comply with their obligations to respect such rights, and that there are enforcement procedures for such conscience protections that are comparable to other civil rights. Additionally, in finalizing its update to the Title X family planning regulations, HHS plans to ensure that the conscience rights of Title X providers are respected.
In addition to reducing burden, an important outcome of regulatory reform efforts is the proliferation of innovative solutions and programs structured to suit the needs of unique problems and populations. HHS is committed to promoting innovation through a variety of mechanisms, including deregulatory actions.
HHS intends to enhance regulatory flexibility so that its state and community partners are able to better tailor their programs to meet the needs of the people they serve. Over the past year and a half, the Department has been looking seriously at its programs to see how it can maximize the number of people reached through amending its regulations to remove or change
In order to best respond to the needs of patients, it is crucial that HHS regulations and programs reflect current science. HHS is fulfilling this need by updating regulations so that the Department can utilize the full spectrum of current scientific thinking when carrying out program activities. Specifically, HRSA plans to revise the Vaccine Injury Table to include vaccines that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends for administration to pregnant women. This revision will allow injuries related to these vaccines to be eligible for the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Additionally, FDA intends to propose a new rule that will modernize mammography quality by recognizing new technologies, making improvements in facility processes, and updating reporting requirements. FDA believes that these changes will improve the delivery of mammography services and allow for more informed decision-making by strengthening the communication of health care information.
FDA is also taking action to facilitate food innovations that can give consumers more choices and enable better nutrition. Diet is a powerful tool for reducing chronic disease and its impact on the healthcare system. Modernizing the outdated framework for food standards will allow industry flexibility for innovation to produce more healthful foods while maintaining the basic nature and nutritional integrity of key food products. FDA will reopen the comment period on its earlier proposed rule soliciting updated information to guide development of a modern approach to regulating food standards and related labeling.
In the coming fiscal year, HHS plans to consider a number of deregulatory actions, accompanied by regulatory changes intended to make its processes more flexible, efficient, and transparent. In order to fully realize the potential of these efforts, HHS recognizes the need for a collaborative rulemaking process where the concerns of patients, providers, States, tribes, faith-based and community organizations, and other stakeholders are appropriately considered. By working with its partners in bringing better healthcare and human services to the American people, and understanding the challenges that they face under HHS's current regulatory structures, the Department will continue to modernize its role in this critical sector of the national economy, assuring its vitality and the increased wellbeing of those it serves.
Required by the HITECH Act. Statutory deadline contingent on further regulatory action.
Second, SAMSHA may alter requirements pertaining to interim maintenance treatment program approval.
This planned deregulatory action would revise 42 CFR part 8 to reduce outmoded requirements. First, SAMSHA may streamline the regulation by deleting now outdated requirements pertaining to transitional certification for opioid treatment programs (OTPs). This change will help make the regulation less confusing by removing a provision that no longer applies.
Second, SAMSHA may alter requirements pertaining to interim maintenance treatment program approval.
Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary (of Health and Human Services) such action will promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers, he shall promulgate regulations fixing and establishing for any food, under its common or usual name so far as practicable, a reasonable definition and standard of identity, a reasonable standard of quality, or reasonable standards of fill of container.
The standards of identity, quality, and fill of container for foods regulated by FDA are codified in title 21, parts 130 to 169 (21 CFR parts 130 to 169). FDA food standards are established under the common or usual name of a food and often specify the content of the food, generally in terms of the types of ingredients that it must contain (
FDA is also proposing updates to modernize the regulations by incorporating current science and mammography best practices, including addressing breast density reporting to patients and health care providers. These updates are intended to improve the delivery of mammography services.
FDA is proposing to update the existing nutrient content claim definition of Healthy based on the food groups recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and also include nutrients to limit to ensure that foods bearing the claim can help consumers build more healthful diets to reduce their risk of diet-related chronic diseases.
In 2016, FDA published Use of the Term `Healthy' in the Labeling of Human Food Products: Guidance for Industry. This guidance was intended to advise food manufacturers of FDA's intent to exercise enforcement discretion relative to foods that use the implied nutrient content claim healthy on their labels which: (1) Are not low in total fat, but have a fat profile makeup of predominantly mono and polyunsaturated fats; or (2) contain at least 10 percent of the Daily Value (DV) per reference amount customarily consumed (RACC) of potassium or vitamin D.
One alternative is to codify the policy in the current enforcement discretion. Although guidance is non-binding, we assume that most packaged food manufacturers are aware of the guidance and, over the past 2 years, have already made any adjustments to their products or product packaging. Therefore, we assume that this alternative would have no costs to industry and no benefits to consumers.
Alternative 2: Extend the compliance date by 1 year.
Extending the anticipated proposed compliance date on the rule updating the definition by 1 year would reduce costs to industry as they would have more time to change products that may be affected by the rule or potentially coordinate label changes with already scheduled label changes. On the other hand, a longer compliance date runs the risk of confusing consumers that may not understand whether a packaged food product labeled healthy follows the old definition or the updated one.
Updating the definition of healthy to align with current dietary recommendations help consumers build more healthful diets to reduce their risk of diet-related chronic diseases. We currently anticipate the monetized benefits to be around $100 million, annualized at 7% in perpetuity.
There are no cost savings.
In addition, the annual Labor-HHS appropriations act imposes, on an annual basis, certain additional requirements with respect to the Title X program, including that all pregnancy counseling be nondirective; that Title X funds not be expended for any activity that in any way tends to promote public support or opposition to any legislative proposal or candidate for public office; that Title X grant applicants certify to the Secretary that they encourage family participation in the decision of minors to seek family planning services and provide counseling to minors on how to resist attempts to coerce them into engaging in sexual activities; and that Title X providers comply with State laws requiring notification or the reporting of child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape, or incest. See,
Finally, the action would ensure that the Title X program and Title X providers comply with laws that protect the conscience rights of individuals and entities who decline to perform, participate in, or refer for abortions, including the Church Amendments (42 U.S.C. 300a-7), the Coats-Snowe Amendment (42 U.S.C. 238n), and the Weldon Amendment, see,
The Department has legal authority to issue and amend regulations to implement Title X of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 300 300a-6), in order to establish the requirements applicable to projects for family planning services, pursuant to section 1006 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 300a-4; section 1006 also provides priority for low-income families. Section 1001 of the PHS Act establishes certain parameters for voluntary Title X family planning projects/programs, including the offering of a broad range of acceptable and effective family planning methods and services (including natural family planning methods, infertility services, and services for adolescents) and the encouragement, to the extent practical, of family participation. Section 1008 of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300a-6, establishes the prohibition on the use of the funds appropriated for Title X “in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.”
In addition, the annual Labor-HHS appropriations act imposes, on an annual basis, certain additional requirements with respect to the Title X program, including that all pregnancy counseling be nondirective; that Title X funds not be expended for any activity that in any way tends to promote public support or opposition to any legislative proposal or candidate for public office; that Title X grant applicants certify to the Secretary that they encourage family participation in the decision of minors to seek family planning services and provide counseling to minors on how to resist attempts to coerce them into engaging in sexual activities; and that Title X providers comply with State laws requiring notification or the reporting of child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape, or incest. See,
Finally, the action would ensure that the Title X program and Title X providers comply with laws that protect the conscience rights of individuals and entities who decline to perform, participate in, or refer for abortions, including the Church Amendments (42 U.S.C. 300a-7), the Coats-Snowe Amendment (42 U.S.C. 238n), and the Weldon Amendment, see,
We are therefore proposing revisions to the requirements that long-term care facilities must meet to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs that would increase the ability of healthcare professionals to devote resources to improving resident care by eliminating or reducing requirements that impede quality care or that divert resources away from providing high quality care.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department) was established in 2003 pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296. The DHS mission statement provides the following: “With honor and integrity, we will safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values.”
Fulfilling that mission requires the dedication of more than 240,000 employees in jobs that range from aviation and border security to emergency response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility inspector. Our duties are wide-ranging, but our goal is clear—keeping America safe.
Leading a unified national effort, DHS has five core missions: (1) Prevent terrorism and enhance security; (2) secure and manage our borders; (3) enforce
In achieving those goals, we are continually strengthening our partnerships with communities, first responders, law enforcement, and Government agencies—at the Federal, State, local, tribal, and international levels. We are accelerating the deployment of science, technology, and innovation in order to make America more secure, and we are becoming leaner, smarter, and more efficient, ensuring that every security resource is used as effectively as possible. For a further discussion of our mission, see the DHS website at
The regulations we have summarized below in the Department's Fall 2018 regulatory plan and agenda support the Department's authorities. These regulations will improve the Department's ability to accomplish its mission. Also, the regulations we have identified in this year's regulatory plan continue to address legislative initiatives such as the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53 (Aug. 3, 2007).
DHS strives for organizational excellence and uses a centralized and unified approach in managing its regulatory resources. The Office of the General Counsel manages the Department's regulatory program, including the agenda and regulatory plan. In addition, DHS senior leadership reviews each significant regulatory project in order to ensure that the project fosters and supports the Department's mission.
The Department is committed to ensuring that all of its regulatory initiatives are aligned with its guiding principles to protect civil rights and civil liberties, integrate our actions, build coalitions and partnerships, develop human resources, innovate, and be accountable to the American public.
In fiscal year 2019, DHS plans to finalize the following actions:
• 0 Executive Order 13771 regulatory actions;
• 18 Executive Order 13771 deregulatory actions (including information collections);
• 4 Executive Order 13771-exempt regulations; and
• 10 regulations for which we are unsure of their Executive Order 13771 designation. (
We provide further information about those actions in the DHS Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda.
DHS is also committed to the principles described in Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 (as amended). Both Executive Orders direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
Finally, the Department values public involvement in the development of its regulatory plan, agenda, and regulations, and is particularly concerned with the impact its regulations have on small businesses. DHS and its components continue to emphasize the use of plain language in our regulatory documents to promote a better understanding of regulations and to promote increased public participation in the Department's regulations.
The Fall 2018 regulatory plan for DHS includes regulations from several DHS components, including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the U.S. Coast Guard (the Coast Guard), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Below is a discussion of the regulations that comprise the DHS fall 2018 regulatory plan.
USCIS is the government agency that administers the nation's lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values. In the coming year, USCIS will promulgate several regulatory actions to support that mission.
Coast Guard is a military, multi-mission, maritime service of the United States and the only military organization within DHS. It is the principal Federal agency responsible for the $4.5 trillion maritime transportation system, including maritime safety, security, and stewardship. The Coast Guard delivers daily value to the nation through multi-mission resources, authorities, and capabilities.
Effective governance in the maritime domain hinges upon an integrated approach to safety, security, and stewardship. The Coast Guard's policies and capabilities are integrated and interdependent, delivering results through a network of enduring partnerships with maritime stakeholders. Consistent standards of universal application and enforcement, which encourage safe, efficient, and responsible maritime commerce, are vital to the success of the maritime industry. The Coast Guard's ability to field versatile capabilities and highly-trained personnel is one of the U.S. Government's most significant and important strengths in the maritime environment.
America is a maritime nation, and our security, resilience, and economic prosperity are intrinsically linked to the oceans. Safety, efficient waterways, and freedom of transit on the high seas are essential to our well-being. The Coast Guard is leaning forward, poised to meet the demands of the modern maritime environment. The Coast Guard creates value for the public through solid prevention and response efforts. Activities involving oversight and
The statutory responsibilities of the Coast Guard include ensuring marine safety and security, preserving maritime mobility, protecting the marine environment, enforcing U.S. laws and international treaties, and performing search and rescue. The Coast Guard supports the Department's overarching goals of mobilizing and organizing our Nation to secure the homeland from terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other emergencies.
In fiscal year 2019, the Coast Guard plans to finalize 0 regulatory actions and 11 deregulatory actions. The Coast Guard is highlighting the following Executive Order 13771 deregulatory actions:
CBP is the Federal agency principally responsible for the security of our Nation's borders, both at and between the ports of entry into the United States. CBP must accomplish its border security and enforcement mission without stifling the flow of legitimate trade and travel. The primary mission of CBP is its homeland security mission, that is, to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States. An important aspect of this priority mission involves improving security at our borders and ports of entry, but it also means extending our zone of security beyond our physical borders.
CBP is also responsible for administering laws concerning the importation into the United States of goods, and enforcing the laws concerning the entry of persons into the United States. This includes regulating and facilitating international trade; collecting import duties; enforcing U.S. trade, immigration and other laws of the United States at our borders; inspecting imports, overseeing the activities of persons and businesses engaged in importing; enforcing the laws concerning smuggling and trafficking in contraband; apprehending individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally; protecting our agriculture and economic interests from harmful pests and diseases; servicing all people, vehicles, and cargo entering the United States; maintaining export controls; and protecting U.S. businesses from theft of their intellectual property.
In carrying out its mission, CBP's goal is to facilitate the processing of legitimate trade and people efficiently without compromising security. Consistent with its primary mission of homeland security, CBP intends to issue several regulations during the next fiscal
In addition to the regulations that CBP issues to promote DHS's mission, CBP also issues regulations related to the mission of the Department of the Treasury. Under section 403(1) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the former-U.S. Customs Service, including functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto, transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security. As part of the initial organization of DHS, the Customs Service inspection and trade functions were combined with the immigration and agricultural inspection functions and the Border Patrol and transferred into CBP. The Department of the Treasury retained certain regulatory authority of the U.S. Customs Service relating to customs revenue function. In addition to its plans to continue issuing regulations to enhance border security, in the coming year, CBP expects to continue to issue regulatory documents that will facilitate legitimate trade and implement trade benefit programs. For a discussion of CBP regulations regarding the customs revenue function, see the regulatory plan of the Department of the Treasury.
FEMA's mission is helping people before, during, and after disasters.
FEMA is working on a deregulatory action titled
FEMA is also working on a regulatory action titled
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) does not have
ICE is the principal criminal investigative arm of DHS and one of the three Department components charged with the criminal and civil enforcement of the Nation's immigration laws. Its primary mission is to protect national security, public safety, and the integrity of our borders through the criminal and civil enforcement of Federal law governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration. During fiscal year 2019, ICE will focus rulemaking efforts on three priority regulations: (1) A final rule to address the detention, processing, and release of alien children; (2) a final rule to increase the fees paid to the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) to recover costs for services; and (3) a proposed rule to replace “duration of status” with a maximum period of stay for certain classes of nonimmigrants.
Below are ICE's significant regulatory actions for the coming fiscal year:
The National Protection and Programs Directorate's (NPPD) vision is a safe, secure, and resilient infrastructure where the American way of life can thrive. NPPD leads the national effort to protect and enhance the resilience of the Nation's physical and cyber infrastructure. Although NPPD does not plan to finalize any significant regulations within the next fiscal year, NPPD will undertake reviews of its existing regulations in accordance with Executive Order 13771. NPPD is also working on several future rulemaking projects, as reflected in the Unified Agenda.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) protects the Nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. TSA applies an intelligence-driven, risk-based approach to all aspects of TSA's mission. This approach results in layers of security to mitigate risks effectively and efficiently. TSA uses established processes, working with stakeholders, to review programs, requirements, and procedures for appropriate modifications based upon changes in the environment, whether those changes result from an evolving threat or enhancements available through new technologies.
For the coming fiscal year, TSA is prioritizing deregulatory actions and regulatory actions that are required to meet statutory mandates and that are necessary for national security. Below are planned TSA actions for fiscal year (FY) 2019.
The United States Secret Service does not have any significant regulations planned for fiscal year 2019.
A more detailed description of the priority regulations that comprise the DHS Fall 2018 regulatory plan follows.
The raise in the investment amounts and reform of the targeted employment area (TEA) geography could deter some investors from participating in the EB-5 program. The increase in investment could reduce the number of investors as they may be unable or unwilling to invest at the higher proposed levels of investment. On the other hand, raising the investment amounts increases the amount invested by each investor and thereby potentially increases the total economic benefits of U.S. investment under this program. The proposed TEA provision would rule out TEA configurations that rely on a large number of census tracts indirectly linked to the actual project tract by numerous degrees of separation, and may better target investment capital to areas where unemployment rates are the highest.
Other, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Background and immigration status check for all railroad frontline employees is due no later than 12 months after date of enactment.
Sections 1411 and 1520 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), (121 Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007), require background checks of frontline public transportation and railroad employees not later than one year from the date of enactment. Requirement will be met through regulatory action.
Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, Economic Analysis Branch—Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
Laura Gaudreau, Attorney—Advisor, Regulations and Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Chief Counsel's Office, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
According to section 3405 of title III of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (FAA Extension Act), Public Law 114-190 (130 Stat. 615, July 15, 2016), a final rule revising the regulations under 49 U.S.C. 44936 is due 180 days after the date of enactment.
Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, Economic Analysis Branch—Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
Christine Beyer, Senior Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Chief Counsel's Office, TSA-2, HQ, E12-336N, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, Economic Analysis Branch—Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
Laura Gaudreau, Attorney-Advisor, Regulations and Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Chief Counsel's Office, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
Requires the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to establish a process to implement the requirements of section 612(a) of Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-176, 117 Stat. 2490, Dec. 12, 2003), including the fee provisions, not later than 60 days after the enactment of the Act.
Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, Economic Analysis Branch—Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
David Ross, Attorney-Advisor, Regulations and Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Chief Counsel's Office, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Rule for public transportation agencies is due one year after date of enactment.
Final, Statutory, February 3, 2008, Rule for railroads and over-the-road buses is due 6 months after date of enactment.
According to sec. 1408 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), (121 Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007), interim final regulations for public transportation agencies are due 90 days after the date of enactment (Nov. 1, 2007), and final regulations are due one year after the date of enactment. According to sec. 1517 of the 9/11 Act, final regulations for railroads and over-the-road buses are due no later than 6 months after the date of enactment.
Alex Moscoso, Chief Economist, Economic Analysis Branch—Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028,
Traci Klemm, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Chief Counsel's Office, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002,
Since 1997, intervening statutory changes, including passage of the Homeland Security Act (HSA) and the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), have significantly changed the applicability of certain provisions of the FSA. The rule would codify the relevant and substantive terms of the FSA and enable the U.S. Government to seek termination of the FSA and litigation concerning its enforcement. Through this rule, DHS, HHS, and DOJ will create a pathway to ensure the humane detention of family units while satisfying the goals of the FSA. The rule will also implement related provisions of the TVPRA.
Since 1997, intervening legal changes including passage of the HSA and TVPRA have significantly changed the applicability of certain provisions of the FSA. The rule will codify the relevant and substantive terms of the FSA and enable the U.S. Government to seek termination of the FSA and litigation concerning its enforcement. Through this rule, DHS, HHS, and DOJ will create a pathway to ensure the humane detention of family units while satisfying the goals of the FSA. The rule will also implement related provisions of the TVPRA.
The primary source of new costs for the proposed rule would be a result of the proposed alternative licensing process, which ICE expects to extend detention of some minors and their accompanying parent or legal guardian in FRCs. This may increase variable annual FRC costs paid by ICE. The primary benefit of the proposed rule would be to ensure that applicable regulations reflect the Departments' current operations with respect to minors and UACs in accordance with the relevant and substantive terms of the FSA and the TVPRA. Further, by departing from the FSA in limited cases to reflect the intervening statutory and operational changes, ICE will ensure that it retains discretion to detain families, as appropriate, to meet its enforcement needs.
The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (SRIA) requires the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in cooperation with representatives of
FEMA is issuing this final rule to comply with SRIA and to provide clarity on the IA factors that FEMA currently considers in support of its recommendation to the President on whether a major disaster declaration authorizing IA is warranted. The additional clarity may reduce delays in the declaration process by decreasing the back and forth between States and FEMA during the declaration process.
FEMA estimated the 10-year present value total cost of the proposed rule would be $15,806 and $13,302 if discounted at 3 and 7 percent, respectively. The annualized cost of the proposed rule would be $1,853 at 3 percent and $1,894 at 7 percent. (All amounts in the NPRM are presented in 2013 dollars.) Benefits of the proposed rule include clarifying FEMA's existing practices, reducing processing time for requests due to clarifications, and providing States with notice of the new information FEMA is proposing to consider as part of the IA declarations process.
The Regulatory Plan for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 highlights the most significant regulations and policy initiatives that HUD seeks to complete during the upcoming fiscal year. As the Federal
HUD is currently working to develop an innovative approach that anticipates the housing needs of the future while addressing current needs. HUD's 2018-2022 strategic plan focuses on rethinking American communities by refocusing on HUD's core mission and modernizing HUD's approach, leveraging private-sector partnerships, supporting sustainable homeownership, encouraging affordable housing investments, and redesigning HUD's internal processes. HUD's regulatory plan for FY2019 reflects Secretary Carson's strategic plan and HUD's mission.
In addition to the highlighted rule in this plan, Secretary Carson directed HUD, consistent with Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” to identify and eliminate or streamline regulations that are wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary. The Secretary has also led HUD's implementation of Executive Order 13777, entitled “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” Executive Order 13777 supplements and reaffirms the rulemaking principles of Executive Order 13771 by directing each agency to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force to evaluate existing regulations to identify those that merit repeal, replacement, or modification; are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; eliminate or inhibit job creation; impose costs that exceed benefits; or derive from or implement Executive Orders that have been rescinded or significantly modified. As a result of Secretary's Carson's direction, HUD's Fall 2019 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions lists two anticipated regulatory actions and twelve deregulatory actions.
The rules highlighted in HUD's regulatory plan for FY2019 reflects HUD's efforts to develop innovative approaches that anticipate the housing needs of the future, including the removal or revision of regulations that HUD has determined are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective.
The purpose of Section 3 is to ensure that employment, training, contracting, and other economic opportunities generated by certain HUD financial assistance are directed to low- and very low-income persons, particularly those who are recipients of government assistance for housing, and to businesses that provide economic opportunities to low- and very low-income persons. HUD's current regulations for Section 3 have not been updated in over 20 years. HUD's experience in administering Section 3 over time has provided insight as to how HUD could improve the effectiveness of its Section 3 regulations. Additionally, HUD has heard from the public that there is a need for regulatory changes to clarify and simplify the existing requirements. HUD concluded that regulatory changes are needed to streamline Section 3 and more effectively help recipients of HUD funds achieve the purposes of the Section 3 statute. HUD's proposed rule would update the regulations implementing Section 3 by aligning the reporting with standard business practice; amending the applicability section; updating reporting and adding new outcome benchmarks; and integrating Section 3 into program enforcement.
The new rule generally proposes the tracking and reporting of labor hours, rather than new hires. HUD believes that this is more consistent with the business practices of most HUD recipients, which already track labor hours in their payroll systems because they are subject to prevailing wage rates under the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, or HUD prevailing wage requirements. A labor-hours frame-work focuses on the outcome that Section 3 requirements are intended to promote,
This proposed rule would maintain the statutory scope of applicability while providing separate subparts relating to the different types of funding sources that have associated Section 3 requirements: (1) Public housing financial assistance, which covers development assistance provided pursuant to section 5 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (1937 Act) and operating and capital fund assistance provided pursuant to section 9 of the 1937 Act; and (2) Section 3 projects, which covers (a) housing rehabilitation, housing construction and other public construction projects funded with HUD program assistance, when such cumulative assistance to a jurisdiction exceeds a $200,000 threshold; and (b) housing rehabilitation or construction projects that include multiple funding sources, one or more of which is associated with Section 3 requirements. HUD would also update the $200,000 cumulative assistance threshold for Section 3 projects applicability to encompass a narrower scope. HUD believes that this change would reduce the burden on smaller projects.
In addition, HUD's proposed rule would change the process for meeting a safe harbor for compliance with the Section 3 requirements and reporting of Section 3 data. HUD's current regulations provide for a safe harbor where recipients demonstrate compliance with Section 3 by meeting numerical goals for the percentage of their new hires that qualify as Section 3 residents. In addition to hiring Section 3 workers generally, the Section 3 statute directs for recipients of Section 3 covered assistance to target their efforts to provide employment and economic opportunities to specific groups of low-income individuals. HUD's proposed rule would create two “Targeted Section 3 Worker” definitions that would track, according to the type of funding source, the numbers of Section 3 workers who are (a) reported by Section 3 business concerns, or (b) represent the priority categories included in the statute and selected by HUD,
Using the new reporting metrics, HUD would set benchmarks for the safe harbor through
Lastly, HUD's proposal would provide that program staff would incorporate Section 3 compliance and oversight into regular program oversight and make Section 3 a more integral part of the program office's work. As a result, this proposed rule would streamline the extensive complaint and compliance review procedures in the current rule. Relatedly, it would remove the delegation of authority in the current regulations, as Section 3 requirements, reporting, and compliance activities would be aligned with those of the applicable HUD program office or offices.
HUD envisions this rule being completed in FY 2019.
Executive Order 12866, as amended, requires the agency to provide its best estimate of the combined aggregate costs and benefits of all regulations included in the agency's Regulatory Plan that will be pursued in FY 2019. HUD expects that the neither the total economic costs nor the total efficiency gains will exceed $100 million.
This rule would codify HUD's program to approve condominium projects for FHA insurance pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1707(a), as amended by section 2117 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), which defines a mortgage eligible for FHA insurance as a first lien on a one-family unit along with an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities which serve the project. This codification would make current requirements for the program less strict and prescriptive, giving the condominium industry greater flexibility.
The FHA Condominium program is currently administered under the Condominium Approval and Processing Guide (the Guide). The Guide has a number of “bright line” requirements. This final rule would, on the other hand, establish more flexible and less costly requirements. The rule retains those requirements that are necessary to fulfill HUD's duty to avoid excessive risk to the insurance fund but does so in a less prescriptive way. This should result in increasing FHA participation in the condominium market and make condominiums more widely available. Condominium units are a valuable source of homeownership for moderate and lower-income families.
To provide for flexibility the rule would remove strict numeric requirements in favor of provisions that permit HUD to act within ranges. Specifically, where the Guide currently has strict numerical requirements regarding the allowable percentage of FHA-insured projects, the percentage of owner occupants, and the amount of space that can be used for commercial or nonresidential purposes, the final rule would make these percentages flexible and efficient to change, so that HUD can adjust to changing market conditions. HUD anticipates providing for the ability to change these threshold percentages by notice, rather than regulation, the rule would allow HUD to quickly adjust these percentages to be responsive to the market. There is also a provision for HUD to grant exceptions to these percentages on a case-by-case basis, considering factors relating to the economy for the locality in which the project is located or specific to the project. The percentage range limits themselves may be changed by publishing a notice for a brief period of public comment.
The final rule would also allow for single units to be approved for mortgage insurance outside of the project approval process. Unlike the Guide that does not provide a provision for insuring mortgages on units other than in an approved project, this rule recognizes that there may be situations where a project may not be approved, not because of any significant inherent problem with the project that creates risk to the insurance fund (
The rule would institute front-end standards for mortgagees to qualify to participate as Direct Endorsement lenders in the DELRAP, or Direct Endorsement Review and Approval Program. Once qualified, these lenders have the ability to review and approve condominium loans, with HUD having the authority to intervene in the case of misconduct or unacceptable performance. Ensuring that Direct Endorsement mortgagees have staff members with relevant condominium experience helps to mitigate risks to the insurance fund.
Executive Order 12866, as amended, requires the agency to provide its best estimate of the combined aggregate costs and benefits of all regulations included in the agency's Regulatory Plan that will be pursued in FY 2018. HUD expects that the neither the total economic costs nor the total efficiency gains will exceed $100 million.
On July 16, 2015, HUD published in the
Under the AFFH rule, HUD program participants are required to use an Assessment Tool to conduct and submit an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) to HUD. Because of the variations in the HUD program participants subject to the AFFH rule, HUD went through a process to develop three separate assessment tools: one for local governments, one for public housing agencies, and one for States and Insular Areas. Due to varying technical and other issues, only the Assessment Tool for local governments was ever made available for use. However, HUD withdrew the Local Government Assessment Tool in a
On May 15, 2017, HUD published a
As HUD begins the process of developing a new proposed rule, HUD issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on August 16, 2018, at 83 FR 40713, which invites public comment on amendments to the AFFH regulations. HUD is also reviewing comments submitted in response to the withdrawal of the Local Government Assessment Tool and will consider those comments during HUD's consideration of potential changes to the AFFH regulations. HUD will use these sets of comments in drafting future rulemaking.
Executive Order 12866, as amended, requires the agency to provide its best estimate of the combined aggregate costs and benefits of all regulations included in the agency's Regulatory Plan that will be pursued in FY 2018. At this pre-rule stage, HUD expects that the neither the total economic costs nor the total efficiency gains will exceed $100 million.
Initial compliance costs are expected to be minimal and one-time as recipients shift their practices to meet the new requirements. For example, some recipients may have difficulty determining whether employees live in a Qualified Census Tract, or whether they live within a certain distance of a worksite. However, HUD plans to create tools to assist recipients in making these determinations. HUD will pay attention to public comment on this issue to ensure that compliance costs are indeed reduced by this rule change.
Benefits to low-income and very low-income persons are difficult to quantify. As described below, the change from measuring new hires to measuring labor hours could not only reduce churn but, depending on the initial benchmarks established, could also result in employers not needing to add new Section 3 workers in the short-term. However, tracking the amount of work performed by Targeted Section 3 workers would help ensure that the priorities of Section 3 are being considered, consistent with the statutory requirement, when recipients hire and distribute hours to low-income
The initial benefit of this rule is the reduction in administrative costs to both HUD and recipients of HUD financing, which results from aligning the Section 3 requirements with what businesses already track. HUD believes this change would improve compliance by recipients.
Thomas R. Davis, Director, Office of Recapitalization, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410,
Virginia Sardone, Director, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410,
The U.S. Department of the Interior (“Interior” or “the Department”) serves the American public by managing the Nation's natural resources for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people, and it honors the United States' trust responsibilities or special commitments to Federally recognized tribes, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated insular areas. This includes managing approximately 500 million surface acres of Federal land or about twenty percent of the Nation's land area, approximately 700 million subsurface acres of Federal mineral estate, and over a billion acres of submerged lands on the Outer Continental Shelf.
Hundreds of millions of people visit Interior-managed lands each year in order to engage in camping, hiking, hunting, fishing and various other forms of outdoor recreation, which supports local communities and their economies. Interior provides access to Federal lands and offshore areas for the development of energy, minerals and other natural resources, which generates revenue for all levels of government, creates jobs and supports the Nation's energy and mineral security by promoting the identification and development of domestic sources of energy, minerals and the associated infrastructure needs. Interior manages these resources under a legal framework that includes
America's lands and natural resources hold tremendous job-creating assets. As the steward for a substantial portion of this public trust, Interior manages the Nation's lands and natural resources for multiple uses. Through this balanced stewardship of public resources, which recognizes the value of both conservation and development, Interior helps drive job opportunities and economic growth. Interior supports $254 billion in estimated economic benefit, while direct grants and payments to states, tribes, and local communities provide an estimated $10 billion in economic benefit. In 2017, Interior collected approximately $9.6 billion from energy, mineral, grazing, and forestry activities on behalf of the American people. Interior also supports the economy by eliminating unnecessary and burdensome Federal regulatory requirements.
President Trump has made it a priority of his administration to reform regulatory requirements that negatively impact our economy while maintaining environmental standards. Since day one, Secretary Zinke has been committed to regulatory reform. Interior is playing a key role in regulatory reform and, pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” (signed Feb. 24, 2017), has established a Regulatory Reform Task Force to help make Interior's regulations work better for the American people. In accordance with E.O. 13777, as well as E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (signed Jan. 30, 2017), Interior will continue its efforts to identify and repeal, replace or modify regulations that are unnecessary, ineffective or that impose costs, which are not adequately justified by benefits. Interior will also continue to encourage and seek public input on these regulatory reform efforts.
In fiscal year 2019, Interior's regulatory agenda will continue to reflect a strong commitment to a conservation ethic that also recognizes that unnecessary regulations create harmful economic consequences on the U.S. economy. In doing this, the Department will continue to protect human health and the environment in a responsible and cost-effective manner, but in a way that avoids imposing undue process or unnecessary economic burdens on the American public.
On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed E.O. 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” which states that “[i]t is in the national interest to promote clean and safe development of our Nation's vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation.” In accordance with E.O. 13783, Interior strives to promote the responsible development of Federal and Indian energy resources, while seeking to identify and eliminate regulatory requirements that unnecessarily burden the development or use of domestic sources of energy beyond the degree necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law. In addition to reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens, Interior is committed to improving its management of Federal and Indian energy resources by developing more efficient and streamlined permitting and review procedures.
The Department also recognizes that the public lands under its stewardship are an important source of the Nation's non-energy mineral resources, some of which are critical and strategic, and it is committed to ensuring appropriate access to public lands for the orderly and efficient development of important mineral resources. On December 20, 2017, President Trump signed E.O. 13817, “A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals,” which prioritizes the need to reduce America's dependence on foreign sources for critical mineral supplies, which the U.S. relies upon to manufacture everything from batteries and computer chips to the equipment used by our military. Within this framework, on December 21, 2017, Secretary Zinke signed Secretary's Order (S.O.) No. 3351, “Critical Mineral Independence and Security,” which directed Interior bureaus to identify a list of critical minerals and streamline permitting to encourage domestic production of those critical minerals.
In furtherance of these goals, Interior completed the following regulatory actions during fiscal year 2018:
• BLM published the final rule entitled, “Oil and Gas: Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands; Rescission of a 2015 Rule” (82 FR 61924, Dec. 29, 2017);
• BLM publish the final rule entitled, “Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation: Rescission or Revision of Certain Requirements” (83 FR 49184, Sept. 28, 2018); and
• BSEE published the final rule entitled, “Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf—Oil and Gas Production Safety Systems” (83 FR 49216, Sept. 28, 2018).
In fiscal year 2019, Interior will continue to pursue a regulatory agenda that seeks to eliminate or minimize regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy and mineral development, and that promotes efficient, effective and timely processing of energy and mineral permits and other authorizations on Interior-administered lands and waters. Some of the regulatory actions that Interior is planning to prioritize in fiscal year 2019 include the following:
• BSEE is considering a potential regulatory action to revise the final rule entitled, “Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf—Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control” (81 FR 25887, Apr. 29, 2016);
• BOEM is reviewing and considering a potential regulatory action related to its Notice to Lessees No. 2016-N01, “Notice to Lessees and Operators of Federal Oil and Gas, and Sulfur Leases, and Holders of Pipeline Right-of-Way and Right-of-Use and Easement Grants in the Outer Continental Shelf” (Sep. 12, 2016);
• BOEM is reconsidering the provisions of the proposed rule entitled, “Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance,” (81 FR 19718, Apr. 5, 2016);
• BSEE and BOEM are reviewing and considering a potential regulatory action related to the final rule entitled, “Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf—Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf” (81 FR 46478, Jul. 15, 2016); and
• BLM is reviewing and considering a potential regulatory action related to the final rules entitled, “Onshore Oil and Gas Operations; Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases; Site Security” (81 FR 81356, Nov. 17, 2016), “Onshore Oil and Gas Operations; Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases; Measurement of Oil” (81 FR 81462, Nov. 17, 2016), and “Onshore Oil and Gas Operations; Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases; Measurement of Gas” (81 FR 81516, Nov. 17, 2016).
As outlined in E.O. 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects” (signed Aug. 15, 2017), inefficiencies in permitting processes, including environmental review processes, can delay or prevent infrastructure investments, increase project costs, and prevent the American people from experiencing infrastructure improvements that would benefit our economy, society and environment. With this in mind, E.O. 13807 directs Federal agencies to undertake actions in order to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, transparency and accountability of their environmental review and permitting processes for infrastructure projects.
The Department is responsible for reviewing and approving permits and other authorizations for various public and private infrastructure projects on and across Interior-managed lands nationwide, including various forms of surface transportation, such as roadways and railroads, pipelines, transmission lines, water resource projects, and energy production and generation. As such, Interior has an important role in the overall objective of improving the Nation's infrastructure.
In recognition of the important role that it plays in the overall efforts to improve and strengthen the Nation's infrastructure, Interior has initiated actions in order to identify and address potential impediments to its efficient and effective review of infrastructure projects. For example, on August 31, 2017, Interior issued S.O. 3355, “Streamlining the National Environmental Policy Act Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807, `Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,' ” in order to enhance, modernize and improve the efficiencies of the Department's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review processes.
In order to ensure that the objectives of E.O. 13807 and S.O. 3355 are effectively implemented, the Department has issued numerous guidance documents, including Environmental Review Memorandum No. ERM 10-11, “Determining the Applicable Environmental Review Framework for Infrastructure Projects” (August 9, 2018), and the following memoranda from the Deputy Secretary of the Interior:
• “Additional Direction for Implementing Secretary's Order 3355” (April 27, 2018);
• “NEPA Document Clearance Process” (April 27, 2018);
• “Compiling Contemporaneous Decision Files” (April 27, 2018);
• “Standardized Intra-Department Procedures Replacing Individual Memoranda of Understanding for Bureaus Working as Cooperating Agencies” (June 11, 2018);
• “Questions and Answers Related to Deputy Secretary Memorandums (Memos) dated April 27, 2018” (June 22, 2018);
• “Reporting Costs Associated with Developing Environmental Impact Statements” (July 23, 2018); and
• “Additional Direction for Implementing Secretary's Order 3355 Regarding Environmental Assessments” (August 6, 2018).
In addition, pursuant to S.O. 3358, “Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting” (signed Oct. 25, 2017), Interior established an Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting to help improve the Department's permitting processes for energy projects. This will involve improving the permitting processes for energy-related projects, as well as the harmonization of appurtenant environmental reviews.
In fiscal year 2019, Interior will pursue a regulatory agenda that continues its efforts to improve the Department's permitting processes, including interagency coordination and environmental review processes, for various types of infrastructure projects. Some of the regulatory actions planned for 2019 that will help to support those objectives include:
• A Departmental rule that is being developed to update and streamline Interior's NEPA processes—“Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969”; and
• The following U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulatory actions:
○ “Conservation of Endangered and Threatened Species; Revision of Regulations to Address Interagency Cooperation”;
○ “Endangered and Threatened Species of Wildlife and Plants; Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat”;
○ “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of Blanket Section 4(d) Rule”; and
○ “Endangered Species Act Section 10 Regulations; Exceptions Regarding the Conservation of Endangered and Threatened Species of Wildlife and Plants.”
On March 2, 2017, Secretary Zinke signed S.O. 3347, “Conservation Stewardship and Outdoor Recreation,” which established a goal to enhance conservation stewardship, increase outdoor recreation, and improve the management of game species and their habitat.
With S.O. 3356, “Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes, and Territories,” which was signed on September 15, 2017, Interior announced continued efforts to enhance conservation stewardship; increase outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans, including opportunities to hunt and fish; and improve the management of game species and their habitats for this generation and beyond.
On April 18, 2018, Secretary Zinke signed S.O. 3365, “Establishment of a Senior National Adviser for Recreation,” and S.O. 3366, “Increasing Recreational Opportunities on Lands and Waters Managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior.” Those Secretary's Orders provide additional support for Interior's continuing efforts to increase access to outdoor recreation on public lands for all American.
In fiscal year 2019, Interior will pursue a regulatory agenda that will help to achieve its goals of expanding opportunities for outdoor recreation, including hunting and fishing, for all Americans; enhancing conservation stewardship; and improving the management of species and their habitat. The regulatory actions that Interior is planning to pursue in accordance with the aforementioned goals include:
• A regulatory action that would align Federal regulations regarding sport hunting and trapping in national preserves in Alaska with State of Alaska laws and regulations; and
• Regulatory actions that would authorize certain recreational activities, such as off-road vehicle use, snowmobiling and bicycling, within designated areas of certain National Park System units.
The Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are committed to identifying opportunities to promote economic growth and the welfare of the people BIA serves by removing barriers to the development of energy and other resources in Indian country. In fiscal year 2019, Interior will continue to pursue a regulatory agenda that supports that commitment.
Interior made substantial progress in reducing regulatory burdens upon the American public. Since the issuance of E.O. 13771 in January 2017, Interior has finalized deregulatory actions that provide a total of over $200 million in annualized costs savings. In fiscal year 2019, Interior expects to complete deregulatory actions that will provide approximately $50 million in annualized costs savings. Interior does not currently expect to publish any significant regulatory actions during the next year that will be subject to the offset requirements of E.O. 13771. Throughout this document, the terms “deregulatory action” and “significant regulatory action” refer to actions that are subject to E.O. 13771.
The following sections give an overview of some of the major deregulatory and regulatory priorities of Interior bureaus and offices.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) enhances the quality of life, promotes economic opportunity, and protects and improves the trust assets of approximately 1.9 million American Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives. BIA also provides quality education opportunities to students in Indian schools. BIA maintains a government-to-government relationship with the 573 federally recognized Indian tribes. The Bureau also administers and manages 55 million acres of surface land and 57 million acres of subsurface minerals held in trust by the United States for American Indians and Indian tribes.
In the coming year, BIA's regulatory agenda will continue to focus on priorities that ease regulatory burdens on tribes, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and others subject to BIA regulations, in accordance with E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” and E.O. 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” In accordance with this focus, BIA has identified a provision in the Tribal Transportation Program regulation that may be appropriate for revision because it imposes data collection and reporting requirements that are potentially unnecessary under current law. BIA also plans to finalize a regulation that would streamline the right-of-way process for governmental entities seeking a waiver of the requirement to obtain a bond in certain cases. To reduce documentary burden, BIA is planning to finalize a rule that would allow for the recording in land title records of a memorandum of lease, rather than requiring recording of all the lease documents.
Because many of its existing regulations require compliance with the NEPA, BIA is also working on parallel efforts to streamline NEPA implementation, in accordance with E.O. 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” and S.O. 3355, “Streamlining National Environmental Policy Act Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807.”
The BIA has one potentially significant regulatory action on its agenda that would revise the existing regulations governing off-reservation trust acquisitions to establish new items that must be included in an application and threshold criteria that must be met for off-reservation acquisitions before NEPA compliance will be required. The rule would also reinstate the 30-day delay for taking land into trust following a decision by the Secretary or Assistant Secretary. This rule is expected to have de minimis economic impacts and therefore likely exempt from the offset requirements under E.O. 13771.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages more than 245 million acres of public land, known as the National System of Public Lands, primarily located in 12 Western states, including Alaska. The Bureau also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation. As stewards, the BLM pursues its multiple-use mission, providing opportunities for economic growth through uses such as energy development, ranching, mining and logging, as well as outdoor recreation activities such as camping, hunting and fishing, while also supporting conservation efforts. Public lands provide valuable, tangible goods and materials that we use every day to heat our homes, build our roads, and feed our families. The BLM strives to be a good neighbor in the communities it serves, and is committed to keeping public landscapes healthy and productive.
BLM has identified the following deregulatory actions for the coming year:
• Non-Energy Solid Leasable Minerals Royalty Rate Reductions (RIN 1004-AE58); and
• Revisions to Oil and Gas Site Security, Oil Measurement, and Gas Measurement Regulations (RIN 1004-AE59).
BLM has no significant regulatory actions subject to E.O. 13771 planned in 2019.
The BLM is considering a proposed rule to streamline the royalty rate reduction process for non-energy solid leasable minerals. The proposed rule would address shortcomings with the existing royalty rate reduction regulations for non-energy solid leasable minerals at 43 CFR subpart 3513—Waiver, Suspension or Reduction of Rental and Minimum Royalties.
The current regulations establish the royalty rate reduction process. However, that process is believed to be unnecessarily burdensome and the standards are higher than the applicable statute requires for approval of a royalty rate reduction. The proposed rule would streamline the royalty rate reduction process and align the BLM regulations more closely with the standards of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920.
On November 17, 2016, the BLM issued three final rules that updated and replaced the BLM's existing Onshore Oil and Gas Orders (Onshore Orders) for site security (Onshore Order 3), measurement of oil (Onshore Order 4), and measurement of gas (Onshore Order 5). The three rules were codified in Title
In accordance with E.O. 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth” (March 28, 2017), and S.O. 3349, “American Energy Independence” (March 29, 2017), the BLM has undertaken a review of the rules to determine if certain provisions may have added regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation. As a result of this review, the BLM is considering a proposed rulemaking action that will propose to modify certain provisions of 43 CFR subparts 3170, 3173, 3174, and 3175 in order to reduce unnecessary and overly burdensome regulatory requirements.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is committed to the Administration proposition that “A brighter future depends on energy policies that stimulate our economy, ensure our security, and protect our health.” In accordance with E.O. 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” BOEM is committed to the safe and orderly development of our offshore energy and mineral resources, with the goal of avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation. BOEM is committed to identifying regulatory and deregulatory opportunities and policies that lower costs and stimulate development. BOEM continues to strengthen U.S. energy security and energy independence. BOEM creates jobs, benefits local communities, and strengthens the economy by offering opportunities to develop the conventional and renewable energy and mineral resources of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
E.O. 13795, “Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy,” specifically addressed certain Interior rules related to offshore energy. To implement E.O. 13795, Interior issued S.O. 3350, “America-First Offshore Energy Strategy,” which enhances opportunities for energy exploration, leasing, and development on the OCS; establishes regulatory certainty for OCS activities; and enhances conservation stewardship, thereby providing jobs, energy security, and revenue for the American people. In accordance with S.O. 3350, BOEM has:
• Reconsidered its financial assurance policies expressed in Notice to Lessees No. 2016-N01 related to offshore oil and gas activities. BOEM is currently working on a proposed rule to protect taxpayers from unnecessary liabilities while minimizing unnecessary regulatory burdens on industry.
• Ceased activities to promulgate the “Offshore Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance” proposed rule, which was published on April 5, 2016 (81 FR 19717). Following extensive review, BOEM is now completing a more limited final rule that will implement BOEM's statutory responsibility to ensure that OCS operations conducted under a BOEM approved plan are in compliance with statutory mandates.
• Reviewed, in consultation with the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), the final rule “Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf—Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf,” which was published on July 15, 2016 (81 FR 46478), for consistency with the policy set forth in section 2 of E.O. 13795. As a result of that review, BOEM and BSEE are considering deregulatory options for the rule.
BOEM has no economically significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2019.
BOEM's renewable energy program has matured over the past 8 years as it has conducted 7 auctions and issued 13 commercial leases for offshore wind. Through that experience and stakeholder engagement, BOEM has identified deregulatory opportunities for reforming, streamlining, and clarifying its renewable energy regulations. This proposed rulemaking contains reforms that are intended to facilitate offshore renewable energy development, while not decreasing environmental safeguards. The rulemaking advances, and is consistent with, the Administration's deregulatory and energy security policies.
BOEM will continue to be responsive to the various regulatory reform initiatives, including identifying and acting upon any regulations, orders, guidance, policies or any similar actions that could potentially burden the development or utilization of domestically produced energy sources.
The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement's (BSEE) mission is to promote offshore conservation, development and production of offshore energy resources while ensuring that offshore operations are safe and environmentally responsible. BSEE's priorities in fulfillment of its mission are to: (1) Promote and regulate offshore energy development using the full range of authorities, policies, and tools to ensure safety and environmental responsibility; and (2) build and sustain the organizational, technical, and intellectual capacity within and across BSEE's key functions in order to keep pace with offshore industry technology improvements, innovate in economically sound regulation and enforcement, and reduce risk through appropriate risk assessment and regulatory and enforcement actions.
Consistent with the direction in E.O. 13783
In the coming year, BSEE plans to finalize two deregulatory actions and three regulatory actions. BSEE has no
BSEE has identified the following deregulatory actions under E.O. 13771 as high priorities for fiscal year 2019:
In the immediate aftermath of the
Consistent with the policy direction of E.O.s 13771 and 13795 and S.O. 3350, BSEE undertook a review of the 2016 Well Control Rule with a view toward encouraging energy exploration and production and reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens while ensuring that any such activity is safe and environmentally responsible. After thoroughly reexamining the 2016 Well Control Rule, on May 11, 2018, BSEE published a proposed rule entitled, “Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf-Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control Revisions” (83 FR 22128) (“proposed rule”), to reduce regulatory burdens and encourage job-creating development, while still ensuring safe and environmentally responsible offshore oil and gas operations.
In developing the proposed rule, BSEE carefully analyzed all 342 provisions of the 2016 Well Control Rule, and identified 59 of those provisions—or less than 18% of the 2016 Rule—as appropriate for revision or deletion.
• Revising the accumulator system requirements and accumulator bottle requirements for Blowout Preventers (BOPs) to better align with industry standards, particularly API Standard 53
• Revising the requirement to shut in platforms when a lift boat approaches;
• Revising the BOP control station and pod testing schedules to ensure component functionality without inadvertently requiring duplicative testing;
• Removing certain prescriptive requirements for real-time monitoring; and
• Replacing the required use of a BSEE-approved verification of organization (BAVO) with the use of an independent third-party for certain certifications and verifications of BOP systems and components, and removing the requirement to have a BAVO submit a Mechanical Integrity Assessment report for the BOP stack and system.
BSEE has reviewed, in consultation with BOEM, the final rule “Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf—Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf,” published on July 15, 2016 (81 FR 46478), for consistency with the policy set forth in section 2 of E.O. 13795. As a result of that review, BSEE and BOEM are considering deregulatory options for the rule.
In addition to the deregulatory actions previously identified, BSEE will continue to review the remainder of its regulations to identify other requirements that could be modified to increase efficiency, streamline processes, reduce industry burden, and maximize energy resources while ensuring offshore operations are performed in a safe and environmentally sustainable manner.
BSEE has no significant regulatory actions subject to E.O. 13771 planned for fiscal year 2019. However, BSEE plans to complete the following three, non-significant rulemakings before the end of that fiscal year that are either statutorily required or are minor in nature:
This rulemaking would adjust the level of civil monetary penalties contained in BSEE's regulations that are pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (FCPIA) requires Federal agencies to make annual adjustments for inflation to civil penalties contained in its regulations.
To provide for a more cohesive and streamlined approach for making annual inflation adjustments to BSEE's FOGRMA-related civil penalties under the FCPIA, this rulemaking would remove the civil monetary amounts contained in BSEE's regulations and replace them with a cross-reference to the Office of Natural Resource Revenue's (ONRR) FOGRMA civil penalty regulations. Pursuant to the FCPIA, ONRR makes inflation adjustments to its FOGRMA civil penalties on an annual basis pursuant to the FCPIA.
Interior will amend its regulations to exempt certain records from particular provisions of the Privacy Act, which BSEE maintains to conduct and document incident investigations related to operations on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
The Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) will continue to collect, account for, and disburse revenues from Federal offshore energy and mineral leases and from onshore mineral leases on Federal and Indian lands. The program operates nationwide and is primarily responsible for timely and accurate collection, distribution, and accounting for revenues associated with mineral and energy production. ONRR's regulatory plan for October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019 is as follows:
By January 15, 2019, ONRR will draft and publish in the
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) was created by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). Under SMCRA, OSMRE has two principal functions—the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations, and the reclamation and restoration of abandoned coal mine lands. In enacting SMCRA, Congress directed OSMRE to “strike a balance between protection of the environment and agricultural productivity and the Nation's need for coal as an essential source of energy.” OSMRE seeks to develop and maintain a regulatory program that provides a safe, cost-effective, and environmentally sound supply of coal to help support the Nation's economy and local communities.
OSMRE is continuing to review additional actions to reduce burdens on energy production, including, for example, reviewing the state program amendment process to reduce the time it takes to formally amend an approved regulatory program.
OSMRE has no significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2019.
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is to work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The FWS also provides opportunities for Americans to enjoy the outdoors and our shared natural heritage.
The FWS fulfills its responsibilities through a diverse array of programs that:
• Protect and recover endangered and threatened species;
• Monitor and manage migratory birds;
• Enforce Federal wildlife laws and regulate international trade;
• Conserve and restore wildlife habitat such as wetlands;
• Help foreign governments conserve wildlife through international conservation efforts;
• Distribute Federal funds to States, territories, and tribes for fish and wildlife conservation projects; and
• Manage the more than 150 million acres of land and water from the Caribbean to the remote Pacific in the National Wildlife Refuge System, which protects and conserves fish and wildlife and their habitats, and allows the public to engage in outdoor recreational activities.
During the next year, the regulatory priorities of FWS will include:
The FWS, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), will propose regulatory actions to improve the administration of the ESA, and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens. The FWS and NMFS are developing regulatory reforms that will create efficiencies and streamline the ESA consultation process, as well as the processes for listing and delisting threatened and endangered species. In addition, FWS is developing a regulatory action that would remove the blanket section 4(d) rule applying to species listed as threatened. This change will align FWS's process with NMFS and result in regulations and prohibitions tailored to the conservation needs of specific species.
The FWS is also considering a rulemaking action that would improve and clarify its regulations that implement section 10 of the ESA and pertain to the issuance of permits for the take of threatened and endangered species.
The FWS also plans to take multiple regulatory actions under the ESA in order to prevent the extinction and facilitate the recovery of both domestic and foreign animal and plant species. Accordingly, FWS will add species to, remove species from, and reclassify species on the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, and designate critical habitat, in accordance with the National Listing Workplan and 3-Year Downlisting and Delisting Workplan. These Workplans enable FWS to prioritize its workload based on the needs of species, while providing greater clarity and predictability about the timing of ESA classification determinations to State wildlife agencies, nonprofit organizations, and various other diverse stakeholders and partners. The goals of the Workplans are to encourage proactive conservation so that Federal protections are not needed in the first place and to remove regulatory burdens once a listed species' status is improved or the species is recovered.
In carrying out its responsibility to manage migratory bird populations, FWS plans to issue annual migratory bird hunting regulations, which establish the frameworks (outside limits) for States to establish season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting. FWS is considering and plans to propose a regulatory action to revise and improve the administration of the MBTA.
In carrying out its statutory responsibility to provide wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on NWRS lands, FWS issues an annual rule to update the hunting and fishing regulations on specific refuges.
Under the Acts, FWS distributes annual apportionments to States from trust funds derived from excise tax revenues and fuel taxes. FWS continues to work closely with State fish and wildlife agencies on how to use these funds to implement conservation projects. To strengthen its partnership with State conservation organizations, FWS is working on several rules to update and clarify its regulations. Planned regulatory revisions will help to reflect several new decisions agreed upon by State conservation organizations.
In accordance with section 3(a) of E.O. 13609, “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation,” FWS will update its CITES regulations to incorporate provisions resulting from the 16th and 17th Conference of the Parties to CITES. The revisions will help FWS more effectively promote species conservation and help U.S. importers and exporters of wildlife products understand how to conduct lawful international trade.
The FWS has no significant regulatory actions that are subject to E.O. 13771 planned for fiscal year 2019.
The National Park Service (NPS) preserves the natural and cultural resources and values within 417 units of the National Park System encompassing nearly 84 million acres of lands and waters for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The NPS also cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of resource conservation and outdoor
The NPS intends to issue a number of deregulatory actions and no significant regulatory actions during the upcoming year.
The NPS will undertake deregulatory actions under E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” that will reduce regulatory costs. Several of these actions also comply with section 6 of E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” because they will remove or modify outdated, unnecessarily complicated and burdensome regulations.
The NPS intends to:
• Issue a final rule to align sport hunting regulations in national preserves in Alaska with State of Alaska regulations and to enhance consistency with harvest regulations on surrounding non-federal lands and waters.
• Issue a proposed rule that would revise existing regulations implementing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) to streamline requirements for museums and Federal agencies. The rule would describe the NAGPRA process in accessible language with clear time parameters, eliminate ambiguity, clarify terms, and improve efficiency.
Enabling regulations are considered deregulatory under guidance to E.O. 13771. The NPS will undertake several enabling regulatory actions in the coming year that will provide new opportunities for the public to enjoy and experience certain areas within the National Park System. These include regulations authorizing:
• Off-road vehicle use at Cape Lookout National Seashore (final rule), Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (final rule), Big Cypress National Preserve (proposed rule), and Fire Island National Seashore (proposed rule);
• Bicycling at Pea Ridge National Military Park (final rule), Hot Springs National Park (proposed rule), Buffalo National River (proposed rule), and Whiskeytown National Recreation Area (proposed rule);
• Launching of non-motorized vessels from Colonial National Historic Park (proposed rule);
• Snowmobiles within Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore (proposed rule);
• Personal watercraft within Gulf Islands National Seashore (proposed rule); and
• Recreational flying within Death Valley National Park (proposed rule).
These actions will allow the public to use NPS-administered lands and waters in a manner that protects the resources and values of the National Park System. As outdoor recreation technology, uses, and patterns evolve, the NPS regulations and management policies will also need to evolve. The NPS is working to address emerging forms of recreation such as electric bicycles (e-bikes).
The NPS intends to issue a proposed rule to implement the Visitor Experience Improvements Authority (VEIA) given to the NPS by Congress in Title VII of the National Park Service Centennial Act. This authority allows the NPS to award and administer commercial services contracts (and related professional services contracts) for the operation and expansion of commercial visitor facilities and visitor services programs in units of the National Park System.
The Bureau of Reclamation's mission is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. To accomplish this mission, we employ management, engineering, and science to achieve effective and environmentally sensitive solutions. Reclamation projects provide: Irrigation water service, municipal and industrial water supply, hydroelectric power generation, water quality improvement, groundwater management, fish and wildlife enhancement, outdoor recreation, flood control, navigation, river regulation and control, system optimization, and related uses. In addition, we continue to provide increased security at our facilities.
The Bureau of Reclamation intends to publish no deregulatory or significant regulatory actions in fiscal year 2019.
The existing regulation (43 CFR 11) provides procedures that Natural Resource Trustees may use to evaluate the need for and means of restoring, replacing, or acquiring the equivalent of public natural resources that are injured or destroyed as a result of releases of hazardous substances. The Department is considering a potential rulemaking action that would provide an opportunity for others (Federal agencies, States, Indian Tribes, and interested public) to provide input on areas of the existing regulations that could be revised to increase effectiveness, efficiency, and restoration of the injured resources.
The Department is developing regulations to streamline its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process by increasing the number of categorical exclusions and updating its NEPA regulations.
Deanna Meyer-Pietruszka, Chief, OPRA, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240,
The solemn duty of the Department of Justice is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States so that all Americans can live in peace and security. As the chief law enforcement agency of the United States government, the Department of Justice's fundamental mission is to protect people by enforcing the rule of law. To fulfill this mission, the Department is devoting resources and utilizing the legal authorities available to combat violent crime and terrorism, prosecute drug traffickers, and enforce immigration laws. Because the Department of Justice is primarily a law enforcement agency and not a regulatory agency, it carries out its principal investigative, prosecutorial, and other enforcement activities through means other than the regulatory process.
This year, the Department of Justice continues to revise and improve its procedures for evaluating new regulatory actions and analyzing the costs that would be imposed. Executive Order 13771 (E.O. 13771), titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017), requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, that for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination. In furtherance of this requirement, section 2(c) of E.O. 13771 requires the new incremental costs associated with new regulations, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations. Section 3(a) states that starting with fiscal year 2018, “the head of each agency shall identify, for each regulation that increases incremental cost, the offsetting regulations described in section 2(c) of [E.O. 13771], and provide the agency's best approximation of the totals costs or savings associated with each new regulation or repealed regulation.”
In addition to the new cost analyses being conducted pursuant to E.O. 13771, the Department is actively carrying out the provisions of E.O. 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” 82 FR 12285 (Mar. 1, 2017). The Department's Regulatory Reform Task Force continues actively working to evaluate existing Department regulatory actions and to make recommendations regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification in order to reduce unnecessary burdens.
The regulatory priorities of the Department include initiatives in the areas of federal grant programs, criminal law enforcement, immigration, and civil rights. These initiatives are summarized below. In addition, several other components of the Department carry out important responsibilities through the regulatory process. Although their regulatory efforts are not separately discussed in this overview of the regulatory priorities, those components have key roles in implementing the Department's anti-terrorism and law enforcement priorities.
ATF issues regulations to enforce the Federal laws relating to the manufacture and commerce of firearms and explosives. ATF's mission and regulations are designed, among other objectives, (1) to curb illegal traffic in, and criminal use of, firearms and explosives, and (2) to assist State, local, and other Federal law enforcement agencies in reducing crime and violence. ATF will continue, as a priority during fiscal year 2019, to seek modifications to its regulations governing commerce in firearms and explosives to fulfill these objectives.
As its key regulatory initiative, ATF plans to amend its regulations to clarify that “bump fire” stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics (bump-stock-type devices) are “machineguns” as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934, and the Gun Control Act of 1968, because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. This is one of the Department's Regulatory Plan entries.
In addition, ATF plans to update its regulations requiring notification of stored explosive materials to require annual reporting (RIN 1140-AA51). This regulatory action is intended to increase safety for emergency first responders and the public.
ATF also plans to issue regulations to finalize the current interim rules implementing the provisions of the Safe Explosives Act (RIN 1140-AA00). The Department is also planning to finalize a proposed rule to codify regulations (27 CFR part 771) governing the procedure and practice for proposed denial of applications for explosives licenses or permits and proposed revocation of such licenses and permits (RIN 1140-AA38). As proposed, this rule is a regulatory action that clarifies the administrative hearing processes for explosives licenses and permits. This rule promotes open government and disclosure of ATF's procedures and practices for administrative actions involving explosive licensees or permittees.
ATF also has begun a rulemaking process that amends 27 CFR part 447 to update the terminology in the ATF regulations based on similar terminology amendments made by the Department of State on the U.S. Munitions List in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, and the Department of Commerce on the Commerce Control List in the Export Administration Regulations (RIN 1140-AA49).
DEA is the primary agency responsible for coordinating the drug law enforcement activities of the United States and also assists in the implementation of the President's National Drug Control Strategy. DEA implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 801-971), as amended, collectively referred to as the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). DEA's mission is to enforce the CSA and its regulations and bring to the criminal and civil justice system those organizations and individuals involved in the growing, manufacture, or distribution of controlled substances and listed chemicals appearing in or destined for illicit traffic in the United States. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate medical,
Pursuant to its statutory authority, DEA plans to update its regulations to implement provisions of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (RIN 1117-AB45) relating to the partial filling of prescriptions for Schedule II controlled substances. This is one of the Department's Regulatory Plan initiatives.
In fiscal year 2019, DEA anticipates issuing a rulemaking action addressing suspicious orders of controlled substances (RIN 1117-AB47) . This proposed rule would remedy the inadequacies of the existing reporting requirements by defining the term “suspicious order” and specifying the procedures registrants must follow upon receiving such orders. In addition, DEA plans to publish six deregulatory actions (RINs 1117-AB37, 1117-AB40, 1117-AB43, 1117-AB44, 1117-AB45, and 1117-AB46). Consistent with E.O. 13771 and E.O. 13777, DEA is continuing to review existing regulations to identify those that are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective. DEA will solicit public comments during such reviews, as appropriate, to engage with the affected DEA registrant community and members of the public.
EOIR's primary mission is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation's immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. The immigration judges adjudicate approximately 150,000 cases each year to determine whether aliens should be ordered removed from the United States or should be granted some form of protection or relief from removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has jurisdiction over appeals from the decisions of immigration judges, as well as other matters. Accordingly, the Attorney General has a continued role in the conduct of immigration proceedings, including removal proceedings and custody determinations regarding the detention of aliens pending completion of removal proceedings. The Attorney General also is responsible for civil litigation and criminal prosecutions relating to the immigration laws.
In particular, EOIR intends to propose revisions to the existing asylum regulations, pursuant to the Attorney General's statutory authority, to ensure the faithful and efficient execution of asylum processes (RIN 1125-AA87). This is one of the Department's Regulatory Plan initiatives.
In other pending rulemaking actions, the Department is working to revise and update the regulations relating to immigration proceedings to increase efficiencies and productivity, while also safeguarding due process. In particular, EOIR is working to expand upon its Public Notice of June 25, 2018, by publishing a proposed rule regarding its new EOIR Case and Appeals System, which provides for greatly expanded electronic filing and calendaring for cases before EOIR's immigration courts and BIA (RIN 1125-AA81).
In addition, EOIR is planning to publish a regulation to finalize an interim final rule from 2005 regarding background and security investigation checks (RIN 1125-AA44), and is working to finalize a jurisdiction and venue rule that will provide clarification regarding an immigration judge's authority to conduct proceedings, how venue is determined, and what circuit court law EOIR adjudicators will apply (RIN 1125-AA52). In particular, EOIR is developing mechanisms in this rule intended to streamline certain venue changes to achieve cost savings to the agency and increase due process to the parties. In addition, in response to Executive Order 13563, the Department is retrospectively reviewing EOIR's regulations to eliminate regulations that unnecessarily duplicate Department of Homeland Security regulations and update outdated references to the pre-2003 immigration system (RIN 1125-AA71). The Department also continues to work toward rulemaking that will assist in identifying and sanctioning those defraud the system itself and the individuals who appear before EOIR (RIN 1125-AA82).
CRT regulations implement Federal laws relating to discrimination in employment-related immigration practices, the coordination of enforcement of non-discrimination in federally assisted programs, and Federal laws relating to disability discrimination.
Pursuant to the regulatory reform provisions of Executive Orders 13771 and 13777, CRT is undertaking a review of its guidance documents to determine whether any of those documents may be outdated, inconsistent, or duplicative, and to ensure compliance with the Attorney General's November 16, 2017 Memorandum entitled Prohibition on Improper Guidance Documents.
OJP provides innovative leadership to federal, state, local, and tribal justice systems by disseminating state-of-the-art knowledge and practices and providing financial assistance for the implementation of crime fighting strategies. OJP will continue to review its existing regulations to streamline them, where possible.
OJP published a notice of proposed rulemaking for the OJJDP Formula Grant Program on August 8, 2016, and in early 2017 published a final rule addressing some of those provisions. OJP anticipates publishing a second final OJJDP Formula Grant Program rule to remove certain provisions of the regulations that are no longer legally supported (deleting text that unnecessarily repeats statutory provisions or has been rendered obsolete by statutory changes) and to make technical corrections. After publishing the second final rule, OJJDP anticipates publishing a third final rule to finalize the remaining substantive aspects of the proposed rule, and to further streamline and improve the existing regulation by providing or revising definitions for clarity, and by deleting text that addresses matters already (or better) addressed in other places (
BOP issues regulations to enforce the Federal laws relating to its mission of protecting society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens. During the next 12 months, BOP will continue its ongoing efforts to develop regulatory actions aimed at: (1) Streamlining regulations, eliminating unnecessary language and improving readability; (2) improving inmate disciplinary procedures and sanctions, improving safety in facilities through the use of less-than-lethal force instead of traditional weapons; and (3) providing effective literacy programming which serves both general and specialized inmate needs.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is responsible for protecting and defending the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, upholding and enforcing the criminal laws of the
This rule provides significant non-quantifiable benefits to public safety. Among other things, it clarifies that a bump-stock-type device is a machinegun and limits access to them; prevents usage of bump-stock-type devices for criminal purposes; reduces casualties in mass shootings, such as the Las Vegas shooting; and helps protect first responders by preventing shooters from using a device that allows them to shoot a semiautomatic firearm automatically.
The changes in this rule are also important in helping address the ongoing opioid epidemic, by allowing practitioners and patients to limit the amount of schedule II opioids left unused after a course of treatment.
Additionally, under 21 U.S.C. 871(b), the Attorney General may promulgate and enforce any rules, regulations, and procedures deemed necessary for the efficient execution of the Attorney General's functions, including general enforcement of the CSA. Consistent with 21 U.S.C. 871(a), the Attorney General has delegated that authority to the DEA.
The proposed rule will include provisions aimed at giving patients and practitioners a simple and low-cost way to request and record partial fills that also ensures accountability and prevents diversion of controlled substances. The DEA will request comment on the proposed rule and will consider all alternatives. Special consideration will be given to flexible approaches that reduce burdens and maintain freedom of choice for the public.
Some of the provisions in this proposed rule merely restate the general requirements of the CARA for partial filling of prescriptions for schedule II controlled substances. Since these provisions are mandated by Congress, the DEA is obligated to incorporate them into its regulations, and has no discretion to consider alternatives.
The provisions of this rule may also require prescribers to take additional time writing prescriptions, since they would need to include partial fill instructions on the prescriptions, and pharmacists to take additional time tracking the status of partially filled prescriptions, in order to ensure that the proper amount of medication is dispensed if a patient returns to fill the remainder of a prescription, but the DEA believes this additional time required would be minimal, and that the cost of such additional time would be minimal.
There is also the potential for benefits to patients and society as a result of this proposed rule. Patients could request a partial fill of a prescription if they are unlikely to use the full amount, and save money by not paying for pills they would not use. Furthermore, reducing the quantity of leftover schedule II controlled substances would reduce the risk of diversion and the risk of improper disposal and associated environmental impact. This is an enabling rule because it allows for partial fills of prescriptions for schedule II controlled substances, which was previously prohibited.
The Department of Labor's mission is to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights. The Department works to hold employers accountable for their legal obligations to their employees, while recognizing that the Department also has a duty to help employers understand and comply with the many laws and regulations affecting their workplaces.
The Secretary of Labor has made protecting America's employees and promoting job creation his top priorities. Under his leadership, the Department is committed to fully and fairly enforcing the laws under its jurisdiction. The vast majority of employers work hard to keep their workplaces safe and to comply with wage and pension laws. Acknowledging this, the Department is working to provide compliance assistance, to give employers the knowledge and tools they need to comply with their obligations in these areas. Compliance with the law is, however, mandatory. Employers that do not comply with the law will continue to be subject to enforcement.
During the past year, the Department took action to help millions employed by small businesses gain access to quality, affordable health coverage through its Association Health Plan reform. This reform allows employers, including small businesses, and working owners—many of whom are facing much higher premiums and fewer coverage options as a result of Obamacare—a greater ability to join together and gain many of the regulatory advantages enjoyed by large employers, and thereby offer better health coverage options to their employees.
In the coming year, the Department will build upon its previous work in providing for workforce protections, protecting the jobs of American workers, and helping the workforce add more family-sustaining jobs.
In general, the Department will work to assist employees and employers to meet their needs in a helpful manner, with a minimum of rulemaking.
The Department will roll back regulations that harm American workers and families—but we will do so while respecting the principles and institutions that make us who we are as Americans.
Where regulatory actions are necessary, they will be accomplished in a thoughtful and careful manner. The Department seeks to achieve needed employee protections while limiting the burdens regulations place on employers.
The Department's regulatory actions will provide American employers with certainty about workforce rules. The Department's regulatory plan will make employers' obligations under current law clear, while respecting the rule of law. Where Congress is silent, the Department does not have the authority to write the law.
The proposals that follow are common-sense approaches in areas needing regulatory attention, presenting a balanced plan for protecting employees, aiding them in the acquisition of needed skills, and helping the regulated community to do its part.
The Department's Regulatory Agenda is consistent with the requirements of Section 1 of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” 82 FR 9339 (January 30, 2017) recognizes that “it is essential to manage costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal Regulations.”
The Department's Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) works to protect the benefit plans of workers, retirees, and their families.
On August 31, 2018, President Trump issued an executive order establishing the policy of the Federal Government to expand access to workplace retirement plans. Pursuant to the executive order, EBSA will consider ways to permit employees at different businesses to participate in a single workplace plan. EBSA intends to consider ways to allow small businesses to sponsor Association Retirement Plans for their employees. EBSA also intends to consider ways to expand access to workplace plans for sole proprietors, sometimes called working owners. To implement these steps, EBSA is considering issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking that would clarify when separate businesses can elect to jointly sponsor an Association Retirement Plan.
EBSA, in conjunction with the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Health and Human Services will, consistent with Executive Order 13813, consider proposing regulations or revising guidance consistent with law and sound policy to increase the usability of health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), to expand employers' ability to offer HRAs to their employees, and to allow HRAs to be used in conjunction with nongroup coverage.
The Wage and Hour Division (WHD) administers numerous laws that establish the minimum standards for wages and working conditions in the United States. WHD will propose an updated salary level for the exemption of executive, administrative, and professional employees for overtime purposes. In developing the NPRM, the Department has been informed by the comments previously received in response to its Request for Information.
WHD will also propose an update to its regulations concerning joint employment,
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers must pay covered employees at least one and one half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. WHD will propose to amend its regulations to clarify, update, and define regular rate requirements under the FLSA.
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) ensures that federal contractors and subcontractors take affirmative action and do not, among other things, discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin, disability, or status as a protected veteran. OFCCP plans to update its regulations to comply with current law regarding protections for religious organizations.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) oversee a wide range of standards that are designed to reduce occupational deaths, injuries, and illnesses. OSHA is committed to the establishment of clear, common-sense standards to help accomplish this. The OSHA items discussed below are deregulatory in nature, in that they reduce burden, while maintaining needed worker protections.
OSHA continues its work to protect workers from occupational exposures to beryllium. Following the publication of a revised beryllium standard in January 2017, OSHA received evidence that exposure in the shipyards and construction is limited to a few operations and that requiring the ancillary provisions broadly may not improve worker protection and may be redundant with overlapping protections in other standards. Accordingly, OSHA sought comment on, among other things, whether existing standards covering abrasive blasting in construction, abrasive blasting in shipyards, and welding in shipyards provide adequate protection for workers engaged in these operations. The agency is reviewing the public comments and formulating a final rule.
OSHA issued a proposal on July 30, 2018, to revise provisions of the May 12, 2016, Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses final rule. OSHA reviewed the May 2016 final rule as part of its regulatory reform efforts and proposed changes intended to reduce unnecessary burdens while maintaining worker protections. In particular, the proposed rule addresses concerns about the release of private information in the electronic submission of injury and illness reports by employers. Although OSHA stated its intention not to publish personally identifiable information (PII) included on Forms 300 and 301 in the May 2016 final rule, OSHA has now determined that it cannot guarantee the non-release of private information. It has now proposed requiring submission of only the Form 300A summary data, which does not include any private information, not the individual, case-specific data recorded in Forms 300 and 301. If finalized, the rule would allow OSHA to continue to use the summary data to make targeted inspections, while better protecting worker privacy.
OSHA also continues work on its Standards Improvements Projects (SIPs), with the plan to finalize SIP IV next. These actions are intended to remove or revise duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent safety and health standards. OSHA published three earlier final standards to remove unnecessary provisions, reducing costs or paperwork burden on affected employers, while maintaining needed worker protections.
Finally, the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) administers federal job training and worker dislocation adjustment programs, federal grants to states for public employment service programs, and unemployment insurance benefits. ETA and WHD are amending regulations regarding the H-2A non-immigrant visa program. This action will include necessary technical improvements to the existing H-2A regulations, modernizing and streamlining the functionality of the program.
OSHA has determined that there is significant risk of material impairment of health at the new lower PEL of 0.2 µg/m
DOT has statutory responsibility for a wide range of regulations. For example, DOT regulates safety in the aviation, motor carrier, railroad, motor vehicle, commercial space, transit, and pipeline transportation areas. The Department also regulates aviation consumer and economic issues, and provides financial assistance and writes the necessary implementing rules for programs involving highways, airports, mass transit, the maritime industry, railroads, and motor transportation and vehicle safety. Finally, DOT has responsibility for developing policies that implement a wide range of regulations that govern programs such as acquisition and grants management, access for people with disabilities, environmental protection, energy conservation, information technology, occupational safety and health, property asset management, seismic safety, security, and the use of aircraft and vehicles. The Department carries out its responsibilities through the Office of the Secretary (OST) and the following operating administrations (OAs): Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA); Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); Federal Transit Administration (FTA); Maritime Administration (MARAD); National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration; (PHMSA); and St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC).
The Department's highest priority is safety. To achieve our safety goals responsibly and in accordance with principles of good governance, we embrace a regulatory philosophy that emphasizes transparency, stakeholder engagement, and regulatory restraint. Our goal is to allow the public to understand how we make decisions, which necessarily includes being transparent in the way we measure the risks, costs, and benefits of engaging in—or deciding not to engage in—a particular regulatory action. It is our policy to provide an opportunity for public comment on such actions to all interested stakeholders. Above all, transparency and meaningful engagement mandate that regulations should be straightforward, clear, and accessible to any interested stakeholder.
• At DOT, transparency and stakeholder engagement take a number of different forms. For example, we publish a monthly report on our website that provides a summary and the status for all significant rulemakings that DOT currently has pending or has issued recently (
• We also seek public input through direct engagement. For example, we published a request asking the public to help us identify obstacles to infrastructure projects,
The Department's regulatory philosophy also embraces the notion that there should be no more regulations than necessary. We emphasize consideration of non-regulatory solutions and have rigorous processes in place for continual reassessment of existing regulations. These processes provide that regulations and other agency actions are periodically reviewed and, if appropriate, are revised to ensure that they continue to meet the needs for which they were originally designed, and that they remain cost-effective and cost-justified.
For example, DOT regularly makes a conscientious effort to review its rules in accordance with the Department's 1979 Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, Feb. 26, 1979), Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Department follows a repeating 10-year plan for the review of existing regulations. Information on the results of these reviews is included in the Unified Agenda.
In addition, through three new Executive Orders, President Trump directed agencies to further scrutinize their regulations and other agency actions. On January 30, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. Under section 2(a) of the Executive Order, unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it must identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. On February 24, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13777, enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda. Under this Executive Order, each agency must establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF) to evaluate existing regulations, and make recommendations for their repeal, replacement, or modification. On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, requiring agencies to review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and other similar agency actions that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources.
In response to the mandate in Executive Order 13777, the Department formed an RRTF consisting of senior career and non-career leaders, which has already conducted extensive reviews of existing regulations, and identified a number of rules to be repealed, replaced, or modified. As a result of the RRTF's work, since January 2017, the Department has issued deregulatory actions that reduce regulatory costs on the public by at least $882 million (in net present value cost savings). Even when the costs of significant regulatory actions are factored in, the Department's deregulatory actions in FY2018 will still result in over $500 million in net cost savings (in net present value). With the RRTF's assistance, the Department has achieved these cost savings in a manner that is fully consistent with enhancing safety. For example, in March 2018, the FAA promulgated a rule titled Rotorcraft Pilot Compartment View,
The Department has also significantly increased the number of deregulatory actions it is pursuing. Today, DOT is pursuing over 120 deregulatory rulemakings, up from just 16 in the fall of 2016.
The RRTF continues to conduct monthly reviews across all OAs to identify appropriate deregulatory actions. The RRTF also works to ensure that any new regulatory action is rigorously vetted and non-regulatory alternatives are considered. Further information on the RRTF can be found online at:
Four fundamental principles—safety, innovation, enabling investment in infrastructure, and reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens—are our top priorities. These priorities are grounded in our national interest in maintaining U.S. global leadership in safety, innovation, and economic growth. To accomplish our regulatory goals, we must create a regulatory environment that fosters growth in new and innovative industries without burdening them with unnecessary restrictions. At the same time, safety remains our highest priority; we must remain focused on managing safety risks and be sure that we do not regress from the successes already achieved. Accordingly, the regulatory plan laid out below reflects a careful balance that emphasizes the Department's priority in fostering innovation while at the same time meeting the challenges of maintaining a safe and reliable, transportation system.
This Regulatory Plan identifies the 10 pending rulemakings that reflect the Department's commitment to safety, innovation, infrastructure, and reducing burdens. For example:
• FAA will focus on regulatory activity to enable, safely and efficiently, the integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS), and to enable expanded commercial space activities.
• NHTSA will focus on maintaining and advancing safety while reducing regulatory barriers to technology innovation, including the development of autonomous vehicles, and updating regulations on fuel efficiency.
• FRA will continue to focus on providing industry members regulatory relief through a rulemaking that allows for alternative compliance with FRA's Passenger Equipment Safety Standards for the operation of Tier III passenger equipment.
• FTA will continue to focus on its statutorily-mandated efforts to establish a comprehensive Public Transportation Safety Program to improve the safety of public transportation systems.
• PHMSA will focus on pipeline safety as well as the movement of hazardous materials across multiple modes of transportation.
At the same time, all OAs are prioritizing their regulatory and deregulatory actions accordance with Executive Orders 13771 and 13563, to make sure they are providing the highest level of safety while eliminating outmoded and ineffective regulations and streamlining other existing regulations in an effort to promote economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. Since each OA has its own area of focus, we summarize the regulatory priorities of each below.
OST oversees the regulatory process for the Department. OST implements the Department's regulatory policies and procedures and is responsible for ensuring the involvement of senior officials in regulatory decision making. Through the Office of the General Counsel, OST is also responsible for ensuring that the Department complies with the Administrative Procedure Act, Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs), Executive Order 13777 (Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda), Executive Order 13873 (Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth), DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures, and other legal and policy requirements affecting rulemaking. In addition, OST has the lead role in matters concerning aviation economic rules, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and rules that affect multiple elements of the Department.
OST provides guidance and training regarding compliance with regulatory requirements and process for personnel throughout the Department. OST also plays an instrumental role in the Department's efforts to improve our economic analyses; risk assessments; regulatory flexibility analyses; other related analyses; retrospective reviews of rules; and data quality, including peer reviews. The Office of the General Counsel is the lead office that works with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to get Administration approval to move forward with significant rules.
OST also leads and coordinates the Department's response to OMB's intergovernmental review of other agencies' significant rulemaking
• In Fiscal Year 2019, the Department will issue an NPRM proposing to establish the applicable regulatory standard for waivers from the Buy America requirement on the basis that a product or item is not manufactured in the United States meeting the applicable Buy America requirement. This rulemaking will streamline and coordinate aspects of the Buy America process across the Department.
In addition, OST will continue its efforts to help coordinate the activities of several OAs that advance various departmental efforts that support the Administration's initiatives on promoting safety, enabling innovation, investing in infrastructure, and reducing regulatory burdens. OST will also continue to provide significant support to the RRTF's efforts to implement the Department's regulatory reform policies.
FAA is charged with safely and efficiently operating and maintaining the most complex aviation system in the world. Destination 2025, an FAA initiative that captures the agency's vision of transforming the Nation's aviation system by 2025, has proven to be an effective tool for pushing the agency to think about longer-term aspirations; FAA has established a vision that defines the agency's priorities for the next five years.
During Fiscal Year 2019, FAA's regulatory priorities will be to enable transformative UAS and commercial space technologies by publishing two notices of proposed rulemaking (Updates to Clarify and Streamline Commercial Space Transportation Regulations, 2120-AL17 and Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 2120-AL31), publishing an interim final rule on UAS marking (External Marking Requirement for Small UAS, 2120-AL32), and advancing the Small Unmanned Aircraft Over People (2120-AK85) rule. The Updates to Clarify and Streamline Commercial Space Transportation Regulations proposal would update and consolidate current regulations contained in four separate parts into a single regulatory part which will provide safety objectives to be achieved for the launch of suborbital and orbital expendable and reusable vehicles, and the reentry of vehicles. This proposal will significantly streamline and simplify licensing of launch and reentry operations and will enable novel operations.
• FAA's top deregulatory priorities will be to issue three final rules. Use of ADS-B in support of Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM), (2120-AK87) would revise the requirement for an application to operate in RVSM airspace. Recognition of Pilot in Command (PIC) Experience in the Military and in part 121 operations, (2120-AL-03) would allow pilots with 121 PIC experience prior to July 31, 2013, but who were not serving as a PIC on that date, to count that time toward the 1000 hour experience required to serve as a PIC in part 121 today. Severe Weather Detection Equipment Requirement for Helicopter Air Ambulance (HAA) Operations, (2120-AK94) would allow HAA operator to conduct instrument flight rules (IFR) departures and approaches procedures at airports and heliports that do not have an approved weather reporting source, in HAA aircraft without functioning severe weather detection equipment, when there is no reasonable expectation of severe weather at the destination, the alternate, or along the route of flight.
• More information about these rules can be found in the DOT Unified Agenda.
FHWA carries out the Federal highway program in partnership with State and local agencies to meet the Nation's transportation needs. FHWA's mission is to improve continually the quality and performance of our Nation's highway system and its intermodal connectors.
Consistent with this mission, in Fiscal Year 2019, the FHWA will continue with ongoing regulatory initiatives in support of its surface transportation programs. It will also work to implement legislation in the most cost-effective way possible. Finally, it will pursue regulatory reform in areas where project development can be streamlined or accelerated, duplicative requirements can be consolidated, recordkeeping requirements can be reduced or simplified, and the decision-making authority of our State and local partners can be increased.
The mission of FMCSA is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving commercial trucks and buses. A strong regulatory program is a cornerstone of FMCSA's compliance and enforcement efforts to advance this safety mission. In addition to Agency-directed regulations, FMCSA develops regulations mandated by Congress, through legislation such as the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Acts. FMCSA regulations establish minimum safety standards for motor carriers, commercial drivers, commercial motor vehicles, and State agencies receiving certain motor carrier safety grants and issuing commercial drivers' licenses.
FMCSA's regulatory efforts for FY 2019 will focus on removing regulatory burdens and streamlining the grants program. The Agency will consider changes to the hours of service regulations that would improve operational flexibilities for motor carriers consistent with safety. In addition, FMCSA will continue to coordinate efforts on the development of autonomous vehicle technologies and review existing regulations to identify changes that might be needed.
• The mission of NHTSA is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce economic costs due to roadway crashes. The statutory responsibilities of NHTSA relating to motor vehicles include reducing the number, and mitigating the effects of motor vehicle crashes and related fatalities and injuries; providing safety performance information to aid prospective purchasers of vehicles, child restraints, and tires; and improving automotive fuel efficiency requirements. NHTSA pursues policies that enable safety technologies and encourages the development of non-regulatory approaches when feasible in meeting its statutory mandates. NHTSA issues new standards and regulations or amendments to existing standards and regulations when appropriate. It ensures that regulatory alternatives reflect a careful assessment of the problem and a comprehensive analysis of the benefits, costs, and other impacts associated with the proposed regulatory action. Finally, NHTSA considers alternatives consistent with principles in applicable executive orders.
NHTSA's regulatory priorities for Fiscal Year 2019 include continuing to coordinate efforts on the development of autonomous vehicles and reducing regulatory barriers to technology innovation. NHTSA also plans to issue several rulemakings and other actions that increase safety and reduce
FRA exercises regulatory authority over all areas of railroad safety and, where feasible, incorporates flexible performance standards. To foster an environment for collaborative rulemaking, FRA established the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC). The purpose of RSAC is to develop consensus recommendations for regulatory action on issues FRA brings to it. Even in situations where RSAC consensus is not achieved, FRA benefits from receiving input from RSAC. In situations where RSAC participation would not be useful (
FRA's current regulatory program continues to reflect a number of pending proceedings to satisfy mandates resulting from the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA08), the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), and the FAST Act. These actions support a safe, high-performing passenger rail network, address the safe and effective movement of energy products, and encourage innovation and the adoption of new technology in the rail industry to improve safety and efficiencies. FRA's regulatory priority for Fiscal Year 2019 will be to continue its work on a final rule that will advance high-performing passenger rail by providing alternative ways to comply with passenger rail equipment standards (Passenger Equipment Safety Standards for the operation of Tier III passenger equipment, RIN 2130-AC46). This rule would ease regulatory burdens on certain passenger rail operations, allowing the development of advanced technology and increasing safety benefits. More information about this rule is in the DOT Unified Agenda.
The mission of FTA is to improve public transportation for America's communities. To further that end, FTA provides financial and technical assistance to local public transit systems, including buses, subways, light rail, commuter rail, trolleys and ferries, oversees safety measures, and helps develop next-generation technology research. FTA's regulatory activities implement the laws that apply to recipients' uses of Federal funding and the terms and conditions of FTA grant awards.
In addition to the Department-wide goals described above, FTA policy regarding regulations is to:
• Ensure the safety of public transportation systems;
• Provide maximum benefit to the Nation's mobility through the connectivity of transportation infrastructure;
• Provide maximum local discretion;
• Ensure the most productive use of limited Federal resources;
• Protect taxpayer investments in public transportation; and
• Incorporate principles of sound management into the grant management process.
In furtherance of its mission and consistent with statutory changes, in Fiscal Year 2019, FTA will focus on deregulatory actions. Specifically, FTA will streamline the environmental review process for transit projects, update its Project Management Oversight regulation, and remove duplicative or outdated rules, such as the Capital Leases regulation. More information about these rules can be found in the DOT Unified Agenda.
MARAD administers Federal laws and programs to improve and strengthen the maritime transportation system to meet the economic, environmental, and security needs of the Nation. To that end, MARAD's efforts are focused upon ensuring a strong American presence in the domestic and international trades and to expanding maritime opportunities for American businesses and workers.
MARAD's regulatory objectives and priorities reflect the agency's responsibility for ensuring the availability of water transportation services for American shippers and consumers and, in times of war or national emergency, for the U.S. armed forces. Major program areas include the following: Maritime Security, Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement, National Defense Reserve Fleet and the Ready Reserve Force, Cargo Preference, Maritime Guaranteed Loan Financing, United States Merchant Marine Academy, Mariner Education and Training Support, Deepwater Port Licensing, and Port and Intermodal Development. Additionally, MARAD administers the Small Shipyard Grants Program through which equipment and technical skills training are provided to America's maritime workforce, with the aim of helping businesses to compete in the global marketplace while creating well-paying jobs at home.
MARAD's regulatory priorities for Fiscal Year 2019 will be to continue to support the objectives and priorities described above in addition to identifying new opportunities for deregulatory action.
PHMSA has responsibility for rulemaking under two programs. Through the Associate Administrator for the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS), PHMSA administers regulatory programs under Federal hazardous materials transportation law. Through the Associate Administrator for the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), PHMSA administers regulatory programs under the Federal pipeline safety laws. In addition, both offices administer programs under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
PHMSA will continue to work toward improving safety related to transportation of hazardous materials by all transportation modes, including pipeline, while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. PHMSA will concentrate on the prevention of high-risk incidents identified through PHMSA's evaluation of transportation incident data. PHMSA will use all available Agency tools to assess data; evaluate alternative safety strategies, including regulatory strategies as necessary and appropriate; target enforcement efforts; and enhance outreach, public education, and training to promote safety outcomes.
Further, PHMSA will continue to focus on streamlining its regulatory system and reducing regulatory burdens. PHMSA will evaluate existing rules to examine whether they remain justified; should be modified to account for changing circumstances and technologies; or should be streamlined or even repealed. PHMSA will continue to evaluate, analyze, and be responsive
In Fiscal Year 2019, OHMS will focus on two priority rulemakings. The first is designed to reduce risks related to the transportation of hazardous materials by rail. PHMSA aims to publish the final rule “Hazardous Materials: Oil Spill Response Plans and Information Sharing for High-Hazard Flammable Trains” (2137-AF08), that expands the applicability of comprehensive oil spill response plans for crude oil trains and requires railroads to share information about high-hazard flammable train operations with State and tribal emergency response commissions to improve community preparedness. The second rulemaking is designed to reduce the risk of transporting lithium batteries by air by addressing the unique challenges they pose. Specifically, “Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Safety Provisions for Lithium Batteries Transported by Aircraft” (2137-AF20) contains three amendments: (1) A prohibition on the transport of lithium ion cells and batteries as cargo on passenger aircraft; (2) a requirement that lithium ion cells and batteries be shipped at not more than a 30 percent state of charge aboard cargo-only aircraft; and (3) a limitation on the use of alternative provisions for small lithium cell or battery shipments to one package per consignment or overpack.
OPS will focus on three pipeline rules. The first rulemaking will finalize a proposal to change the regulations covering hazardous liquid onshore pipelines related to High Consequence Areas for integrity management protections, repair timeframes, and reporting for all hazardous liquid gathering lines (Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines, 2137-AE66). The second rulemaking will finalize the testing and pressure reconfirmation of certain previously untested gas transmission pipelines and certain gas transmission pipelines with inadequate records, require operators incorporate seismicity into their risk analysis and data integration, require the reporting of maximum allowable operating pressure exceedances, allow a 6-month extension of integrity management reassessment intervals with notice, and expand integrity assessments outside of high consequence areas to other populated areas (Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines, 2137-AE72). PHMSA is considering issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking that would provide regulatory relief to certain pipeline operators that experience a reduction in allowable operating pressure due to construction that has occurred in the area (Pipeline Safety: Class Location Requirements, 2137-AF29).
The primary mission of the Department of the Treasury is to maintain a strong economy and create economic and job opportunities by promoting the conditions that enable economic growth and stability at home and abroad, strengthen national security by combatting threats and protecting the integrity of the financial system, and manage the U.S. Government's finances and resources effectively.
Consistent with this mission, regulations of the Department and its constituent bureaus are promulgated to interpret and implement the laws as enacted by Congress and signed by the President. It is the policy of the Department to comply with applicable requirements to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking and carefully consider public comments before adopting a final rule. Also, the Department invites interested parties to submit views on rulemaking projects while a proposed rule is being developed.
To the extent permitted by law, it is the policy of the Department to adhere to the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 13609, and 13771 and to develop regulations that maximize aggregate net benefits to society while minimizing the economic and paperwork burdens imposed on persons and businesses subject to those regulations.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issues regulations to implement and enforce Federal laws relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and ammunition excise taxes and certain non-tax laws relating to alcohol. TTB's mission and regulations are designed to:
(1) Collect the taxes on alcohol, tobacco products, firearms, and ammunition;
(2) Protect the consumer by ensuring the integrity of alcohol products; and
(3) Prevent unfair and unlawful market activity for alcohol and tobacco products.
In FY 2019, TTB will continue its multi-year Regulations Modernization effort by prioritizing projects that reduce regulatory burdens, provide greater industry flexibility, and streamline the regulatory system, consistent with Executive Orders 13771 and 13777. TTB rulemaking priorities also include proposing regulatory changes in response to petitions from industry members and other interested parties, and requesting comments on ways TTB may further reduce burden and support a level playing field for the regulated industry. Specifically, during the fiscal year, TTB plans to publish a deregulatory final rule, following a notice published in FY 2017, which reduces the number of reports submitted by certain regulated industry members. TTB also plans to publish for public comment proposed deregulatory changes in connection with permit applications and to expand industry flexibility with regard to alcohol beverage container sizes (standards of fill). Priority projects also include continuing the rulemaking issued in FY 2017 in response to industry member petitions to authorize new wine treating materials and processes, new grape varietal names for use on labels of wine, and new American Viticultural Areas (AVAs). None of the TTB rulemaking documents issued in FY 2019 are expected to be “regulatory actions” under Executive Order 13771 and subsequent OMB guidance.
This fiscal year TTB plans to give priority to the following deregulatory and regulatory measures:
•
Consistent with E.O. 13771 and 13777, in FY 2017, TTB engaged in a review of its regulations to identify any regulatory requirements that could potentially be eliminated, modified, or streamlined in order to reduce burdens on industry. In FY 2018, TTB worked to remove requirements where possible without the need for rulemaking. This included the elimination of certain information collected on TTB permit-related forms. In FY 2019, TTB intends to propose amending its regulations to eliminate or streamline various additional requirements for application or qualification of distilled spirits plants, wineries, breweries, and manufacturers of tobacco products or processed tobacco. In addition, through these regulatory amendments, TTB intends to address a number of comments it received from the interested public, including industry members, through the Treasury Department's Request for Information on deregulatory ideas (Docket No. TREAS-DO-2017-0012, published in the
•
In these two notices, TTB will address petitions requesting that it amend regulations governing wine and distilled spirits containers to provide for additional authorized “standards of fill.” (The term “standard of fill” generally relates to the size of containers, although the specific regulatory meaning is the authorized amount of liquid in the container, rather than the size or capacity of the container itself.) If implemented, this proposal would provide industry members greater flexibility in producing and sourcing containers and meeting consumer demand. This deregulatory action would also eliminate restrictions that inhibit competition and the movement of goods in domestic and international commerce.
•
On December 18, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act (PATH Act), which is Division Q of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016. The PATH Act contains changes to certain statutory provisions that TTB administers in the Internal Revenue Code regarding excise tax return due dates and bond requirements for certain smaller excise taxpayers. These amendments took effect beginning in January 2017, and TTB published a temporary rule amending its regulations to implement these provisions. At the same time, TTB published in the
•
The PATH Act also contained changes to the Internal Revenue Code amending the definition of hard cider for excise tax classification purposes. The amended definition broadened the range of products to which the hard cider tax rate applies. In FY 2017, TTB published a temporary rule amending its regulations to implement these provisions. At the same time, TTB published in the
•
The Federal Alcohol Administration Act requires that alcohol beverages introduced in interstate commerce have a label issued and approved under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. In accordance with the mandate of Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011, regarding improving regulation and regulatory review, TTB conducted an analysis of its alcohol beverage labeling regulations to identify any that might be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with that analysis. These regulations were also reviewed to assess their applicability to the modern alcohol beverage marketplace. As a result of this review, and further review in FY 2017 and FY 2018 consistent with Executive Orders 13771 and 13777 regarding reducing regulatory burdens, in FY 2019, TTB plans to propose revisions to consolidate and modernize the regulations concerning the labeling requirements for wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. TTB anticipates that these regulatory changes will assist industry in voluntary compliance, decrease industry burden, and result in the regulated industries being able to bring products to market without undue delay. TTB also anticipates that this notice for public comment will give industry members another opportunity to provide comments and suggestions on any additional deregulatory measures in these areas.
In FY 2019, TTB intends to bring to completion a number of rulemaking projects published as notices of proposed rulemaking in FY 2017 in response to industry member petitions to amend the TTB regulations and reopened for public comment in FY 2018:
•
In FY 2017, TTB proposed to amend its regulations pertaining to the production of wine to authorize additional treatments that may be applied to wine and to juice from which wine is made. These proposed amendments were made in response to requests from wine industry members to authorize certain wine treating materials and processes not currently authorized by TTB regulations. Although TTB may administratively approve such treatments, rulemaking facilitates the acceptance of exported wine made using those treatments in foreign markets. In FY 2018 TTB reopened the comment period for the notice, as requested by industry members and, after consideration of the comments, intends to issue a final rule in FY 2019.
•
In FY 2017, TTB proposed to amend its wine labeling regulations by adding a number of new names to the list of grape variety names approved for use in designating American wines. The proposed deregulatory amendments would allow wine bottlers to use these additional approved grape variety names on wine labels and in wine advertisements. In 2018, TTB reopened the comment period for the notice, as requested by industry members and, after consideration of the comments, intends to issue a final rule in FY 2019.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (the Act) provides that, although many functions of the former United States Customs Service were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Treasury retains sole legal authority over customs revenue functions. The Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to delegate any of the retained authority over customs revenue functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security. By Treasury Department Order No. 100-16, the Secretary of the Treasury delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security authority to prescribe regulations pertaining to the customs revenue functions subject to certain exceptions, but further provided that the Secretary of the Treasury retained the sole authority to approve such regulations.
During fiscal year 2019, CBP and Treasury plan to give priority to regulatory matters involving the customs revenue functions which streamline CBP procedures, protect the public, or are required by either statute or Executive Order. The examples of these efforts described below are exempt from Executive Order 13771 as they are non-significant rules as defined by Executive Order. Examples of these efforts are described below.
•
Treasury and CBP plan to finalize interim regulations (81 FR 56477) which amended CBP regulations implementing section 421 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, which set forth procedures to investigate claims of evasion of antidumping and countervailing duty orders.
•
Treasury and CBP plan to amend CBP regulations to implement changes to the drawback law contained in section 906 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. These proposed changes to the regulations will liberalize the standard for substituting merchandise, simplify recordkeeping requirements, extend and standardize timelines for filing drawback claims, and require the electronic filing of drawback claims.
•
Treasury and CBP plan to propose amendments to the CBP regulations pertaining to importations of merchandise that violate or are suspected of violating the copyright laws, including the Digital Millennium
•
Treasury and CBP plans to publish a proposal to amend its regulations with respect to administrative rulings related to the importation of articles in light of exclusion orders issued by the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The proposed amendments seek to promote the speed, accuracy, and transparency of such rulings through the creation of an
As administrator of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is responsible for developing and implementing regulations that are the core of the Department's anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing efforts. FinCEN's responsibilities and objectives are linked to, and flow from, that role. In fulfilling this role, FinCEN seeks to enhance U.S. national security by making the financial system increasingly resistant to abuse by money launderers, terrorists and their financial supporters, and other perpetrators of crime.
The Secretary of the Treasury, through FinCEN, is authorized by the BSA to issue regulations requiring financial institutions to file reports and keep records that are determined to have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters or in the conduct of intelligence or counter-intelligence activities to protect against international terrorism. The BSA also authorizes requiring designated financial institutions to establish AML programs and compliance procedures. To implement and realize its mission, FinCEN has established regulatory objectives and priorities to safeguard the financial system from the abuses of financial crime, including terrorist financing, money laundering, and other illicit activity.
These objectives and priorities include: (1) Issuing, interpreting, and enforcing compliance with regulations implementing the BSA; (2) supporting, working with, and as appropriate, overseeing compliance examination functions delegated to other Federal regulators; (3) managing the collection, processing, storage, and dissemination of data related to the BSA; (4) maintaining a government-wide access service to that same data and for network users with overlapping interests; (5) conducting analysis in support of policymakers, law enforcement, regulatory and intelligence agencies, and the financial sector; and (6) coordinating with and collaborating on anti-terrorism and AML initiatives with domestic law enforcement and intelligence agencies, as well as foreign financial intelligence units.
FinCEN's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2018 include:
•
On March 10, 2016, FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to address requests from filers for clarification of certain requirements regarding the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, including requirements with respect to employees who have signature authority over, but no financial interest in, the foreign financial accounts of their employers. FinCEN is considering public comments and preparing a Final Rule.
•
On April 4, 2016, FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing amendments to the regulatory definitions of broker or dealer in securities under the BSA's regulations. The proposed changes would expand the current scope of the definitions to include funding portals and would require them to implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with all of the BSA's requirements that are currently applicable to brokers or dealers in securities. FinCEN is considering public comments and preparing a Final Rule.
•
On August 25, 2016, FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to remove the AML program exemption for banks that lack a Federal functional regulator, including, but not limited to, private banks, non-federally insured credit unions, and certain trust companies. The proposed rule would prescribe minimum standards for AML programs and would ensure that all banks, regardless of whether they are subject to Federal regulation and oversight, are required to establish and implement AML programs. FinCEN is considering public comments and preparing a Final Rule.
•
On September 1, 2015, FinCEN published in the
•
FinCEN intends to issue an ANPRM to initiate a rulemaking that would establish BSA requirements for “persons involved in real estate closings and settlements,” 31 U.S.C. 5312(a)(2)(U). The new rules may cover various types of businesses and professions involved in real estate transactions, including real estate agents and brokers, settlement attorneys, and title companies. The data from a series of geographical targeting orders issued by FinCEN is being evaluated to support this rulemaking to address money laundering through real estate transactions, especially acquisitions made via currency transmittals. Real estate transactions involving mortgages are already covered by BSA rules for banks and FinCEN rules for residential mortgage lenders and originators.
•
FinCEN is considering issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking amending the registration requirements for money services businesses.
•
FinCEN is considering requiring certain depository institutions and money services businesses (MSBs) to affirmatively provide records to FinCEN of certain cross-border electronic transmittals of funds (CBETF). Current regulations already require that these financial institutions maintain and make available, but not affirmatively
•
FinCEN will research, obtain, and analyze relevant data to validate the need for changes aimed at updating and improving the CMIR and ancillary reporting requirements. Possible areas of study to be examined could include current trends in cash transportation across international borders, transparency levels of physical transportation of currency, the feasibility of harmonizing data fields with bordering countries, and information derived from FinCEN's experience with Geographic Targeting Orders.
•
FinCEN also will continue to issue proposed and final rules pursuant to section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, as appropriate. Finally, FinCEN expects that it may propose various technical and other regulatory amendments in conjunction with ongoing efforts with respect to a comprehensive review of existing regulations to enhance regulatory efficiency.
During fiscal year 2019, the IRS and Treasury's Office of Tax Policy have the following regulatory priorities. The first priority is to provide guidance regarding initial implementation of key provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), Public Law 115-97. Initial implementation priorities include:
• Guidance under sections 101 and 1016 and new section 6050Y regarding reportable policy sales of life insurance contracts.
• Guidance under section 162(f) and new section 6050X.
• Computational, definitional, and other guidance under new section 163(j).
• Guidance on new section 168(k).
• Computational, definitional, and anti-avoidance guidance under new section 199A.
• Definitional and other guidance under new section 451(b) and (c).
• Guidance on computation of unrelated business taxable income for separate trades or businesses under new section 512(a)(6).
• Guidance implementing changes to section 529.
• Guidance implementing new section 965 and other international sections of the TCJA.
• Guidance implementing changes to section 1361 regarding electing small business trusts.
• Guidance regarding Opportunity Zones under sections 1400Z-1 and 1400Z-2.
• Guidance under new section 1446(f) for dispositions of certain partnership interests.
• Guidance on computation of estate and gift taxes to reflect changes in the basic exclusion amount.
• Guidance regarding withholding under sections 3402 and 3405 and optional flat rate withholding.
• Guidance on certain issues relating to the excise tax on excess remuneration paid by “applicable tax-exempt organizations” under section 4960.
• Guidance regarding new section 1061.
• Guidance regarding new section 6695(g).
In addition, the IRS and Treasury's Office of Tax Policy will continue to pursue the actions recommended in the Second Report pursuant to Executive Order 13789 to eliminate, or in other cases reduce, the burdens imposed on taxpayers by eight regulations that the Treasury has identified for review under Executive Order 13789. The remaining deregulatory actions include:
1. Finalize amendment of regulations under section 7602 regarding the participation of attorneys described in section 6103(n) in a summons interview. Proposed amendments were published on March 28, 2018.
2. Finalize removal of temporary regulations under section 707 concerning treatment of liabilities for disguised sale purposes. Proposed regulations that proposed the removal of the temporary regulations under section 707 and the reinstatement of the prior section 707 regulations were published on June 19, 2018.
3. Proposed removal of documentation regulations under section 385 and review of other regulations under section 385. A notice delaying the application of the documentation regulations was published on August 14, 2017.
4. Proposed modification of regulations under section 367 regarding the treatment of certain transfers of property to foreign corporations.
5. Proposed modification of regulations under section 337(d) regarding certain transfers of property to regulated investment companies (RICs) and real estate investment trusts (REITs).
6. Proposed modification of regulations under section 987 on income and currency gain or loss with respect to a section 987 qualified business unit.
The IRS and Treasury are also prioritizing implementation of the President's Executive Order 13813, Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States. The Executive Order, among other things, directs Treasury and the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services to consider proposing or revising regulations or guidance to increase the usability of health reimbursement arrangements.
Finally, it is a priority of the IRS to publish regulations under section 1101 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) that are necessary to implement the new centralized partnership audit regime enacted in November 2015. Section 1101(g)(1) of the BBA provides that the new regime is generally effective for partnership tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. Final regulations regarding the election out of the centralized partnership audit regime were published January 2, 2018. Final regulations regarding the partnership representative and the election to apply the centralized partnership audit regime were published August 9, 2018. Proposed regulations implementing the centralized partnership audit regime were published August 17, 2018.
The Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service) administers regulations pertaining to the Government's financial activities, including: (1) Implementing Treasury's borrowing authority, including regulating the sale and issue of Treasury securities; (2) administering Government revenue and debt collection; (3) administering government-wide accounting programs; (4) managing certain Federal investments; (5) disbursing the majority of Government electronic and check payments; (6) assisting Federal agencies in reducing the number of improper payments; and (7) providing administrative and operational support to Federal agencies through franchise shared services.
During fiscal year 2019, the Fiscal Service will accord priority to the following regulatory projects:
•
The Fiscal Service plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend 31 CFR part 206 governing the collection of public money, along with a request for public comments. This notice will propose implementing statutory authority which mandates that some or all nontax payments made to
•
The Fiscal Service is proposing to amend its electronic payment regulation at 31 CFR part 208. The amendment would eliminate obsolete references in the rule, including references to the Electronic Transfer Account (ETA
•
The Fiscal Service is proposing to amend its regulation at 31 CFR part 210 governing the government's participation in the Automated Clearing House (ACH). The proposed amendment would address changes to the National Automated Clearing House Association's (NACHA) private-sector ACH rules since those rules were last incorporated by reference in Part 210. Among other things, the amendment would address the expansion of Same-Day ACH.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks and Federal savings associations (FSAs). The agency also supervises the Federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC's mission is to ensure that national banks and FSAs operate in a safe and sound manner, provide fair access to financial services, treat customers fairly, and comply with applicable laws and regulations.
Regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2019 include the following regulatory actions, which include rules implementing various provisions of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 115-174) (EGRRCPA):
•
The banking agencies
•
The banking agencies are planning to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to implement a risk sensitive approach to counterparty credit risk using a risk adjusted notational amount of derivatives, allowing for better recognition of netting, and distinguishing margined trades from un-margined trades.
•
The OCC issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth a new approach to CRA to bring clarity, transparency, flexibility, and less burden for regulated financial institutions and consumers. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published on September 5, 2018, 83 FR 45053.
•
The OCC plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to remove the requirement that the board of directors of an FSA approve employment contracts with all employees and limit the approval requirement only to contracts with senior executives.
•
The OCC and FRB issued a proposed rule that would modify the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio standards for U.S. top-tier bank holding companies identified as global systemically important bank holding companies, or GSIBs, and certain of their insured depository institution subsidiaries. In light of section 402 of EGRRCPA, which requires the Federal banking agencies to propose changes to the supplementary leverage ratio denominator for custody banks, the agencies intend to publish a new rulemaking to implement section 402. The notice of proposed rulemaking was published on April 19, 2018, 83 FR 17317.
•
The banking agencies plan to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to implement section 103 of EGRRCPA. Section 103 amended Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 to exclude loans made by a financial institution from the requirement to obtain a Title XI appraisal if certain conditions are met.
•
To implement section 210 of EGRRCPA, the banking agencies issued an interim final rule expanding the 18-month examination schedule to qualifying well-capitalized and well-managed institutions with less than $3 billion in total assets. The interim final rule was published on August 29, 2018, 83 FR 43961.
•
The banking agencies issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would specify capital requirements applicable to an advanced approaches banking organization that invests in long-term debt instruments issued pursuant to the FRB's total loss absorbing capacity regulations, either by a bank holding company or an intermediate holding company.
•
The banking agencies plan to issue a final rule to reflect the upcoming adoption by banking organizations of FASB's Accounting Standards Update 2016-13, which introduces the current expected credit losses methodology (CECL) for estimating allowances for credit losses. The notice of proposed rulemaking was issued on May 14, 2018, 83 FR 22312.
•
Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203, July 21, 2010) (Dodd-Frank Act) requires the banking agencies, National Credit Union
•
To implement section 403 of EGRRCPA, the banking agencies issued an interim final rule that would add investment-grade municipal obligations to the list of permitted assets for high-quality liquid assets (HQLA), as defined in the agencies' Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) rules. The interim final rule was published on August 31, 2018, 83 FR 44451.
•
The banking agencies, the Farm Credit Administration (FCA), and the NCUA plan to issue a final rule to amend their regulations regarding loans in areas having special flood hazards to implement the private flood insurance provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. The notice of proposed rulemaking was published on November 7, 2016, 81 FR 78063.
•
The banking agencies plan to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking that would amend agency regulations interpreting the Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act (DIMIA) to increase the asset thresholds based on inflation or market changes. The current asset thresholds are set at $2.5 billion and $1.5 billion.
•
The banking agencies, FHFA, and FCA issued a final rule to amend the minimum margin requirements for registered swap dealers, major swap participants, security-based swap dealers, and major security-based swap participants for which one of the agencies is the prudential regulator (Swap Margin Rule). The notice of proposed rulemaking was issued on February 21, 2018, 83 FR 7413, requesting comment on the agencies' plan to revise one definition in the current rule to match the definition used for the same purpose in the agencies' capital regulations. The final rule was published on October 10, 2018, 83 FR 50805.
•
The banking agencies plan to issue a final rule to implement the Basel net stable funding ratio standards. These standards would require large, internationally active banking organizations to maintain sufficient stable funding to support their assets generally over a one-year time horizon. The notice of proposed rulemaking was published on June 1, 2016, 81 FR 35123.
•
The OCC plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on other real estate owned (OREO). The proposed rule would update and clarify provisions relating to OREO for national banks and establish a framework to assist Federal savings associations with managing and disposing of OREO in a safe and sound manner.
•
The banking agencies are planning to issue a final rule that would amend the regulations implementing section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act. Section 13 contains certain restrictions on the ability of banking entities to engage in proprietary trading and acquire or retain certain interests in, or enter into certain relationships with, a hedge fund or private equity fund. The amendments are intended to provide banking entities with clarity about what activities are prohibited and to improve supervision and implementation of section 13.
The banking agencies intend to address sections 203 and 204 of EGRRCPA through a separate rulemaking process.
Pursuant to section 203 of EGRRCPA, OCC-supervised institutions with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or less are not “banking entities” within the scope of section 13 of the BHCA, if their trading assets and trading liabilities do not exceed 5 percent of their total consolidated assets, and they are not controlled by a company that has total consolidated assets over $10 billion or total trading assets and trading liabilities that exceed 5 percent of total consolidated assets. In addition, section 204 of EGRRCPA revises the statutory provisions related to the naming of covered funds. The notice of proposed rulemaking was issued on July 17, 2018, 83 FR 33432.
•
The OCC plans to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth key issues to be addressed prior to the development of a framework for receiverships of uninsured Federal branches and agencies.
•
The banking agencies plan to issue a proposed rule to amend their rules of practice and procedure to reflect modern filing and communication methods and improve or clarify other procedures.
•
The banking agencies plan to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to provide criteria for banks and savings associations eligible to file a short-form report in the first and second quarters pursuant to section 205 of the EGRRCPA.
•
The OCC is planning to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the annual stress test rule for national banks and Federal savings associations (FSAs) required under section 165(i) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203, July 21, 2010) (12 U.S.C. 5365(i)) (Dodd-Frank Act). These changes are required by section 401 of the EGRRCPA, which amended the Dodd-Frank Act to raise the threshold for national banks and FSAs subject to DFAST from $10 billion to $250 billion in total consolidated assets, reduce the number of stress test scenarios, and revise the annual stress test requirement to a periodic requirement.
•
The OCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to implement section 206 of the EGRRCPA, which adds a new section 5A of the Home Owners' Loan
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers benefit programs that recognize the important public obligations to those who served this Nation. VA's regulatory responsibility is almost solely confined to carrying out mandates of the laws enacted by Congress relating to programs for veterans and their families. VA's major regulatory objective is to implement these laws with fairness, justice, and efficiency.
Most of the regulations issued by VA involve at least one of three VA components: The Veterans Benefits Administration, the Veterans Health Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration. The primary mission of the Veterans Benefits Administration is to provide high-quality and timely nonmedical benefits to eligible veterans and their dependents. The primary mission of the Veterans Health Administration is to provide high-quality health care on a timely basis to eligible veterans through its system of medical centers, nursing homes, domiciliaries, and outpatient medical and dental facilities. The primary mission of the National Cemetery Administration is to bury eligible veterans, members of the Reserve components, and their dependents in VA National Cemeteries and to maintain those cemeteries as national shrines in perpetuity as a final tribute of a grateful Nation to commemorate their service and sacrifice to our Nation.
VA's regulatory priority plan consists of five high priority regulations with statutory deadlines. Four of the five are Veterans Health Administration (VHA) regulations and the fifth one is a Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) Loan Guaranty regulation.
Three of the VHA regulations intend to codify the VA Mission Act of 2018, in accordance with section 101, 102 and 105 of Public Law 115-182 (hereafter referred to as the “Mission Act”). VA is required to implement the Veterans Community Care Program by June 6, 2019, under which VA will provide care to eligible Veterans through non-VA providers in the community. Under the Mission Act VA is also required to establish procedures to ensure eligible Veterans are able to access walk-in care from certain community providers by June 6, 2019.
The other VHA regulation intends to implement provisions from the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017, Public Law 115-55. This act allows VA to revise and enhance VA's rules for processing claims and appeals and is effective February 19, 2019.
The remaining VBA regulation is required to promulgate regulations governing cash-out home loans in accordance with the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act by November 20, 2018. This rule defines the parameters of when VA will permit cash-out home loans, to include defining net tangible benefit, recoupment, and seasoning requirements.
By June 6, 2019, VA is required to develop procedures to ensure eligible Veterans are able to access walk-in care from certain community providers.
This law has a statutory deadline and requires the SECVA to publish a regulation in the
Public Law 115-55, section 2(x), provides generally that the new review system will apply to all claims for which a notice of decision is provided by the agency of original jurisdiction on or after the later of (a) 540 days from the date of enactment, which falls on February 14, 2019, or (b) 30 days after the date on which the Secretary certifies to Congress that VA is ready to carry out the new appeals system.
VA is required to establish the permanent Community Care program under 38 U.S.C. 1703 by June 6, 2019. By June 6, 2019, VA's current ability to use provider agreements and individual authorizations to purchase community care will also lapse. The procurement agreements established in this interim final rule, and authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1703A, are required to implement the program required under 38 U.S.C. 1703.
VA is required to establish the permanent Community Care program under 38 U.S.C. 1703 by June 6, 2019.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the laws enacted by Congress and signed by the President to protect people's health and the environment. In carrying out these statutory mandates, the EPA works to ensure that all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work; that national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information; that Federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively; that environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy; that all parts of society—communities, individuals, businesses, and State, local and tribal governments—have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks; that environmental protection contributes to making our communities and ecosystems diverse, sustainable and economically productive; and, that the United States plays a leadership role in working with other nations to protect the global environment.
To accomplish its goals in the coming year, the EPA will use regulatory authorities, along with grant- and incentive-based programs, technical and compliance assistance and tools, and research and educational initiatives to address its statutory responsibilities. All of this work will be undertaken with a strong commitment to science, law and transparency.
The EPA's more than forty years of protecting public health and the environment demonstrates our nation's commitment to reducing pollution that can threaten the air we breathe, the water we use, and the communities we live in. Our nation has made great progress in making rivers and lakes safer for swimming and boating, reducing the smog that clouded city skies, cleaning up lands that were once used as hidden chemical dumps and providing Americans greater access to information on chemical safety. To achieve continued positive environmental results, we must foster and maintain a sense of shared accountability between states, tribes and the federal government. This Regulatory Plan contains information on some of our most important upcoming regulatory and deregulatory actions. As always, our Semiannual Regulatory Agenda contains information on a broader spectrum of the EPA's upcoming regulatory actions.
As part of its mission to protect human health and the environment, the EPA is dedicated to improving the quality of the nation's air. From 1970 to 2017, aggregate national emissions of the six criteria air pollutants were reduced over 70 percent, while gross domestic product grew by over 260 percent. The EPA's work to control emissions of air pollutants is critical to continued progress in reducing public health risks and improving the quality of the environment. The Agency will continue to deploy existing regulatory tools where appropriate and warranted. Using the Clean Air Act, the EPA will work with States and tribes to accurately measure air quality and ensure that more Americans are living and working in areas that meet air quality standards. The EPA will continue to develop standards, as directed by the Clean Air Act, for both mobile and stationary sources, to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, toxics, and other pollutants.
CAA title V requires major sources of air pollutants, and certain other sources, to obtain and operate in compliance with an operating permit. Sources with these “title V permits” are required by the CAA to certify compliance with the applicable requirements of their permits at least annually.
In accordance with the President's goal to streamline permitting regulations for manufacturing facilities, the EPA has initiated an effort to issue a series of targeted improvements, including guidance memos and, as necessary, associated rulemakings, to simplify the New Source Review (NSR) process in manner consistent with the Clean Air Act.
We have recently highlighted flexibilities in the implementation of NSR regulations available to manufacturing facilities for the permitting of new projects. Two recent memos, for example, clarified that project emissions accounting can take place in the first step of the NSR applicability process for all project categories and that the EPA will not “second guess” preconstruction analysis that complies with procedural requirements. In FY19, the EPA intends to follow-up these memos with rulemaking to codify these policies. Based on the recommendations of a number of state environmental agencies as well as small businesses under the air toxics program, the EPA has also rescinded its “once-in, always-in” policy. A major source which takes enforceable limitations on its potential to emit (PTE) hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions below the applicable thresholds becomes an area source (strike “,”) and is no longer subject to maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards, no matter when the source may choose to take measures to limit its PTE. In early 2019, EPA anticipates that it will publish a
The nation's water resources are the lifeblood of our communities, supporting our economy and way of life. Across the country we depend upon reliable sources of clean and safe water. Just a few decades ago, many of the nation's rivers, lakes, and estuaries were grossly polluted, wastewater sources received little or no treatment, and drinking water systems provided very limited treatment to water coming through the tap. Since the enactment of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), tremendous progress has been made toward ensuring that Americans have safe water to drink and generally improving the quality of the Nation's waters. While progress has been made, numerous challenges remain in such areas as nutrient loadings, storm water runoff, invasive species and drinking water contaminants. These challenges can only be addressed by working with our State and tribal partners to develop new and innovative strategies in addition to the more traditional regulatory approaches. The EPA plans to address the following challenging issues, in part, in rulemakings.
In Step 2 (Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’), the agencies plan to pursue a public notice-and-comment rulemaking in which the agencies would conduct a substantive reevaluation of the definition of “waters of the United States.” As part of this reevaluation, the agencies are considering defining “navigable waters” in a manner consistent with the plurality opinion of Justice Scalia in the Rapanos decision, as instructed by Executive Order 13778.
On February 6, 2018, the agencies issued a final rule adding an applicability date to the 2015 Rule of February 6, 2020, to provide continuity and certainty for regulated entities, the States and Tribes, and the public while the agencies conduct Step 2 of the rulemaking. Until the new definition is finalized, the agencies will continue to implement the regulatory definition in place prior to the 2015 Rule consistent with Supreme Court decisions and practice, and as informed by applicable agency guidance documents.
The EPA works to improve the health and livelihood of all Americans by cleaning up and returning land to productive use, preventing contamination, and responding to emergencies. The EPA collaborates with other federal agencies, industry, states, tribes, and local communities to enhance the livability and economic vitality of neighborhoods. Challenging and complex environmental problems persist at many contaminated properties, including contaminated soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater that can cause human health concerns. The EPA's regulatory program recognizes the progress made in cleaning up and returning land to productive use, preventing contamination, and responding to emergencies, and works to incorporate new technologies and approaches that allow us to provide for an environmentally sustainable future more efficiently and effectively.
On January 13, 2017, the EPA amended the RMP regulations in order to (1) reduce the likelihood and severity of accidental releases, (2) improve emergency response when those releases occur, and (3) enhance state and local emergency preparedness and response in an effort to mitigate the effects of accidents.
Prior to the effective date of the RMP Amendments rule, the EPA received petitions for reconsideration under Clean Air Act Section 307(d)(7)(B). Petitioners sought reconsideration of the RMP Amendments based on what they view as either EPA's failure to coordinate with OSHA and DOT as required by paragraph (D) of CAA section 112(r)(7) or at least inadequate coordination. Furthermore, petitioners indicated that the arson findings from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives regarding the West Fertilizer 2013 explosion undercut EPA's basis for the proposed rule. Petitioners also raised security concerns related to sharing information with local emergency planning and response organizations and concerns about EPA's economic analysis and the economic burden associated with certain rule provisions. Having considered the concerns regarding the RMP Amendments rule raised in these petitions, the EPA subsequently delayed the effective date of the RMP Amendments rule to February 19, 2019, in order to give the EPA time to reconsider it. On May 30, 2018, the EPA published proposed changes to the rule and sought public comment on the proposed revisions and other related issues.
Chemicals and pesticides released into the environment as a result of their manufacture, processing, use, or disposal can threaten human health and the environment. The EPA gathers and assesses information about the risks associated with chemicals and pesticides and acts to minimize risks and prevent unreasonable risks to individuals, families, and the environment. The EPA acts under several different statutory authorities, including the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know-Act (EPCRA), and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). Using best available science, the Agency will continue to satisfy its overall directives under these authorities and highlights the following efforts underway in FY 2019:
The 2016 amendments to TSCA also require the EPA to take expedited regulatory action without a risk evaluation for persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals from the 2014 update of the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments that meet a specific set of criteria. Under the conditions of use for each PBT chemical, the EPA will characterize likely exposures to humans and the environment; this information is undergoing peer review and public comment. The exposure assessments will then be used to develop regulatory actions that address the risks of injury to health or the environment that the EPA determines are presented by the chemical substances and that reduce exposure to the chemical substances to the extent practicable. TSCA requires the EPA to issue proposed rules no later than June 22, 2019, and final rules no more than 18 months later.
The 2016 amendments to TSCA also authorize the EPA to cover a portion of its annual costs for the TSCA program by collecting user fees from chemical manufacturers and processors when they submit test data for the EPA review; submit a premanufacture notice for a new chemical or a notice of new use; manufacture or process a chemical substance that is the subject of a risk evaluation; or request that the EPA conduct a chemical risk evaluation. In Fiscal Year 2019, the EPA expects to take final action on the 2018 proposed fees rule.
Section 3 of Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) calls on agencies to “identify for each regulation that increases incremental cost, the offsetting regulations . . . and provide the agency's best approximation of the total costs or savings associated with each new regulation or repealed regulation.” Each action in the EPA's fall 2017 Regulatory Plan and Semiannual Regulatory Agenda contains information about whether an action is anticipated to be “regulatory” or “deregulatory” in fulfilling this executive directive. Based on current schedules and expectations regarding whether or not regulatory actions are subject to Executive Order 12866 and hence Executive Order 13771, in fiscal year 2019, the EPA is planning on finalizing approximately 30 deregulatory actions and fewer than ten regulatory actions.
By better coordinating small business activities, the EPA aims to improve its technical assistance and outreach efforts, minimize burdens to small businesses in its regulations, and simplify small businesses' participation in its voluntary programs. Actions that may affect small entities can be tracked on the EPA's Regulatory Flexibility website (
Nick Hutson, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Raj Rao, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, C504-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Nick Hutson, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Final, Statutory, December 22, 2020, Statutory: TSCA section 6(h).
Peter Gimlin, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 7404T, Washington, DC 20460,
Ryne Yarger, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460,
Ryne Yarger, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460,
Ken Munis, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Mail Code 1104T, Washington, DC 20460,
In addition, in December 2016, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act established new statutory provisions applicable to CCR units, including authorizing States to implement the CCR rule through an EPA-approved permit program and authorizing EPA to enforce the rule. In light of the legislation, EPA is proposing amendments for certain performance standards to provide flexibility to the State programs, which would be consistent with the WIIN Act's standard for approval of State programs. Under the WIIN Act, State programs require each CCR unit located in the State to achieve compliance with either the federal CCR rule or State criteria that EPA determines to be as protective as the existing federal CCR requirements.
Kirsten Hillyer, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, Mail Code 5304P, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460,
Lisa Christ, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460,
Final, Judicial, December 19, 2019, Consent Decree,
Samuel Hernandez, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200 Pennyslvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 4607M, Washington, DC 20460,
Lisa Christ, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460,
Rose Kwok, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 4504T, Washington, DC 20460,
Lisa Biddle, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 4303T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460,
Russell Kaiser, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20460,
Karen Wesson, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code C504-06, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Dallas Burkholder, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, N26, Ann Arbor, MI 48105,
Tia Sutton, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 6401A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460,
Final, Judicial, June 22, 2019, The December 27, 2017, decision of the Ninth Circuit ordered “that EPA promulgate the final rule within one year after the promulgation of the proposed rule . . . .”.
John Yowell, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Mail Code 7404T, Washington, DC 20460,
Marc Edmonds, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 7404T, Washington, DC 20460,
Hans Scheifele, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 20460,
Final, Judicial, August 25, 2019, Sign by no later than 14 months after publication of NPRM (NPRM was published on June 25, 2018) & within 15 days thereafter transmit to the
Jim Belke, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 5104A, Washington, DC 20460,
Kathy Franklin, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 5104A, Washington, DC 20460,
In addition, in December 2016, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act established new statutory provisions applicable to CCR units, including authorizing States to implement the CCR rule through an EPA-approved permit program and authorizing EPA to enforce the rule. In light of the legislation, EPA is proposing amendments for certain performance standards to provide flexibility to the State programs, which would be consistent with the WIIN Act's standard for approval of State programs. State programs require each CCR unit located in the State to achieve compliance with either the federal CCR rule or State criteria that EPA determines to be as protective as the existing federal CCR requirements.
Jesse Miller, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 5303P, Washington, DC 20460,
Rose Kwok, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 4504T, Washington, DC 20460,
The mission of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, Commission, or Agency) is to ensure equality of opportunity in employment by vigorously enforcing and educating the public about the following Federal statutes: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex (including pregnancy), religion, or national origin); the Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended (makes it illegal to pay unequal wages to men and women performing substantially equal work under similar working conditions at the same establishment); the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended (prohibits employment discrimination based on age of 40 or older); titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, and sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended (prohibit employment discrimination based on disability); Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information and limits acquisition and disclosure of genetic information); and section 304 of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 (protects certain previously exempt state and local government employees from employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability).
The EEOC has authority to issue legislative regulations under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). Under title VII of the Civil Rights Act, EEOC's authority to issue legislative regulations is limited to procedural, record keeping, and reporting matters.
Two items are identified in this Regulatory Plan. On August 22, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the EEOC to reconsider its regulations under the ADA and GINA related to incentives and employer-sponsored wellness plans.
EEOC does not anticipate finalizing any regulatory or deregulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13771 in the next 12 months. The two rules related to wellness programs under the ADA and GINA are significant under E.O. 12866, but are not expected to be finalized in the next 12 months.
Consistent with section 4(c) of Executive Order 12866, this statement was reviewed and approved by the Chair of the Agency. The statement has not been reviewed or approved by the other members of the Commission.
Priority: Other Significant.
Joyce Walker-Jones, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 20507,
Kerry Leibig, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 20507,
GSA oversees the business of the Federal Government. GSA's acquisition solutions supply Federal purchasers with cost-effective, high-quality products, and services from commercial vendors. GSA provides workplaces for Federal employees and oversees the preservation of historic Federal properties. GSA helps keep the nation safe and efficient by providing tools, equipment, and non-tactical vehicles to the U.S. military, and providing state and local governments with law enforcement equipment, firefighting and rescue equipment, and disaster recovery products and services.
GSA serves the public by delivering products and services directly to its Federal customers through the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), the Public Buildings Service (PBS), and the Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP). GSA has a continuing commitment to its Federal customers and the U.S. taxpayers by providing those products and services in the most cost-effective manner possible.
FAS is the lead organization for procurement of products and services (other than real property) for the Federal Government. The FAS organization leverages the buying power of the Government by consolidating Federal agencies' requirements for common goods and services. FAS provides a range of high-quality and flexible acquisition services to increase overall Government effectiveness and efficiency by aligning resources around key functions.
PBS is the largest public real estate organization in the United States. As the landlord for the civilian Federal Government, PBS acquires space on behalf of the Federal Government through new construction and leasing, and acts as a manager for Federal properties across the country. PBS is responsible for over 370 million rentable square feet of workspace for Federal employees, owns 1,600 plus assets totaling over 180 million rentable square feet, and contracts for more than 7,000 plus leased assets totaling over 180 million rentable square feet.
OGP sets Government-wide policy in the areas of personal and real property, mail, travel, relocation, transportation, information technology, regulatory information, and the use of Federal advisory committees. OGP also helps direct how all Federal supplies and services are acquired as well as GSA's own acquisition programs.
OGP's policy regulations are described in the following subsections:
The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) enumerates travel and relocation policy for all U.S. Code, Title 5 Executive agency employees at
The Federal Management Regulation (FMR) establishes policy for Federal aircraft management, mail management, transportation, personal property, real property, and committee management. The FMR is the successor regulation to the Federal Property Management Regulation (FPMR), and it contains updated regulatory policies originally found in the FPMR. However, it does not contain FPMR material that describes how to do business with GSA. The FMR is in 41 CFR, chapters 101 through 102, and it implements statutory requirements and executive branch policies.
GSA's internal rules and practices on how it buys goods and services from its business partners are covered by the General Services Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM), which implements and supplement the Federal Acquisition Regulation at GSA. The GSAM comprises both a non-regulatory portion (GSAM), which reflects policies with no external impact, and a regulatory portion, the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR). The GSAR establishes agency acquisition regulations that affect GSA's business partners (
GSA's Regulatory Reform Task Force, established under Executive Order 13777, enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, and is making it easier to do business with GSA by eliminating outdated, ineffective, or unnecessary regulations and policies. When GSA established its Regulatory Reform Task Force it set up four informal working groups, led by career employees, and gave them broad authority to review and evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification. Those working groups are organized around the agency's primary functions and regulations: The Federal Management Regulation, the Federal Travel Regulation, the GSA Acquisition Regulation, and policies relating to leasing of buildings.
During Fiscal Year 2018, GSA completed two (2) deregulatory actions.
• GSA issued a final GSAR rule on January 24, 2018 to incorporate order level materials (OLMs), also known as other direct costs (ODCs). This rule, which was implemented in June 2018, will make it easier for customer agencies to buy, and industry partners to provide, complete procurement solutions through the Federal Supply Schedules while ensuring excellent value for taxpayer dollars.
• GSA issued a final GSAR rule on February 22, 2018 to address common commercial supplier agreement (CSA) terms that are inconsistent with or create ambiguity with federal law. This rule, which was implemented in June 2018, mitigates risk for GSA's federal agency customers, reduces proposal and administrative costs for industry partners, and helps expedite the contract review process for GSA Contracting Officers.
Fees for Governance, Oversight and Processing of Environmental Reviews and Authorizations; The Permitting Council proposes to establish a fee structure to reimburse the Permitting Council and its Office of the Executive Director for reasonable costs to implement certain requirements and authorities required under FAST-41.
GSA is amending the FMR by removing language that is not regulatory, revising rules of Federal personal property, management of transportation and the management, construction, and disposal of Federal real property. The appropriate real property regulations are being aligned with the various provisions in the Federal Sales and Transfer Act of 2016 and the Federal Property Management Reform Act of 2016. In addition,
GSA is amending the FPMR by migrating regulations regarding the supply and procurement of Government personal property management and Interagency Fleet Management Systems from the FPMR to the FMR.
GSA is amending the FTR. The Relocation Regulation was impacted by the recent Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The amendment addresses both the moving
GSA is amending the GSAR to implement streamlined and innovative acquisition procedures. GSAR initiatives are focused on:
• Adopting a major construction project delivery method involving early industry engagement;
• Establishing contractual arrangements and ordering procedures for commercial eCommerce portals;
• Streamlining contract requirements for GSA information systems;
• Establishing cyber incident reporting procedures; and
• Revising the requirements for Schedules contract and construction contract administration.
GSAR Case 2017-G502, Transition to Small Business Administration Mentor-Protégé Program, is of interest to small businesses as it will discontinue the GSA agency-level mentor-protégé program. The mentor-protégé program will instead be centralized and managed Government-wide by SBA, as discussed in the SBA rule at 81 FR 48557.
GSPMR Case 2016-105-01, Public Availability of Agency Records and Informational Materials; Proposed Rule. The GSA is issuing a proposed rule to amend its regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The regulations are being revised to update and streamline language of several procedural provisions and to incorporate certain changes brought about by the amendments to the FOIA under both statutory and nonstatutory authorities. This rule also amends the GSA's regulations under the FOIA to incorporate certain changes made to the FOIA by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016.
Dated: July 27, 2018.
GSA's cybersecurity requirements mandate contractors protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of unclassified GSA information and information systems from cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and threats in accordance with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 and associated Federal cybersecurity requirements. This rule will require contracting officers to incorporate applicable GSA cybersecurity requirements within the statement of work to ensure compliance with Federal cybersecurity requirements and implement best practices for preventing cyber incidents. These GSA requirements mandate applicable controls and standards (
Contract requirements for internal information systems, external contractor systems, cloud systems, and mobile systems will be covered by this rule. This rule will also update existing GSAR provision 552.239-70, Information Technology Security Plan and Security Authorization and GSAR clause 552.239-71, Security Requirements for Unclassified Information Technology Resources to only require the provision and clause when the contract will involve information or information systems connected to a GSA network.
The rule outlines the roles and responsibilities of the GSA contracting officer, contractors, and agencies ordering off of GSA's contracts in the reporting of a cyber incident.
The rule establishes a contractor's responsibility to report any cyber incident where the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of GSA information or information systems are potentially compromised or where the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of information or information systems owned or managed by or on behalf of the U.S. Government is potentially compromised. It establishes an explicit timeframe for reporting cyber incidents, details the required elements of a cyber incident report, and provides the required Government's points of contact for submitting the cyber incident report.
The rule also outlines additional contractor requirements that may apply for any cyber incidents involving personally identifiable information. In addition, the rule clarifies both GSA's and ordering agencies' authority to access contractor systems in the event of a cyber incident. It also establishes the role of GSA in the cyber incident reporting process and explains how the primary response agency for a cyber incident is determined. Further, it establishes the requirement for contractors to preserve images of affected systems and ensure contractor employees receive appropriate training for reporting cyber incidents. The rule also outlines how contractor attributional/proprietary information provided as part of the cyber incident reporting process will be protected and used.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) aim is to increase human understanding of the solar system and the universe that contains it and to improve American aeronautics ability. NASA's basic organization consists of the Headquarters, nine field Centers, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (a federally funded research and development center), and several component installations which report to Center Directors. Responsibility for overall planning, coordination, and control of NASA programs is vested in NASA Headquarters, located in Washington, DC.
NASA continues to implement programs according to its 2018 Strategic Plan. The Agency's mission is to “Lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and bring new knowledge and opportunities back to Earth. Support growth of the Nation's economy in space and aeronautics, increase understanding of the universe and our place in it, work with industry to improve America's aerospace technologies, and advance American leadership.” The FY 2018 Strategic Plan (available at
•
•
•
•
In the decades since Congress enacted the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, NASA has challenged its scientific and engineering capabilities in pursuing its mission, generating tremendous results and benefits for humankind. NASA will continue to push scientific and technical boundaries in pursuit of these goals.
The Agency's rulemaking program strives to be responsive, efficient, and transparent. As noted in Executive
NASA, along with the Departments of State and Commerce and Defense, engage with other countries in the Wassenaar Arrangement, Nuclear Suppliers Group, Australia Group, and Missile Technology Control Regime through which the international community develops a common list of items that should be subject to export controls. NASA has also been a key participant in the Administration's Export Control Reform effort that resulted in a complete overhaul of the U.S. Munitions List and fundamental changes to the Commerce Control List. New controls have facilitated transfers of goods and technologies to allies and partners while helping prevent transfers to countries of national security and proliferation concerns.
Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” (February 24, 2017), required NASA to appoint a Regulatory Reform Officer to oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies and establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force) to review and evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to the Agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification, consistent with applicable law. NASA is doing this work primarily through its work as a signatory to the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council.
The FAR at 48 CFR chapter 1 contains procurement regulations that apply to NASA and other Federal agencies. Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1302 and FAR 1.103(b), the FAR is jointly prepared, issued, and maintained by the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator of NASA, under their several statutory authorities.
These reform initiatives and policies include Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (January 30, 2017), section 6 of Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (January 18, 2011), and Executive Order 12866.
In addition, NASA implements and supplements FAR requirements through the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS), 48 CFR chapter 18. As a result of the ongoing review, evaluation, and recommendations of the FAR Task Force and internal Agency discussions, NASA has identified priority regulatory and deregulatory actions that reduce costs to the public by eliminating unnecessary, ineffective, and duplicative regulations.
The Agency has focused its regulatory resources on the most serious acquisition, health, and personnel and readiness risks as discussed below.
NASA will revise the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to implement section 823 of NASA Transition Authorization of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-10) to improve the detection and avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts in the supply chain. This revision will add a contract clause to the NFS to require each covered contractor, including a subcontractor, to detect and avoid the inclusion of any counterfeit parts in electronic parts or products that contain electronic parts, take corrective actions necessary to remedy, and notify the applicable NASA contracting officer not later than 30 calendar days after the date the covered contractor becomes aware, or has reason to suspect, that any end item, component, part, or material contained in supplies purchased by NASA, or purchased by a covered contractor or subcontractor for delivery to, or on behalf of, NASA contains a counterfeit electronic part or suspect counterfeit electronic part.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) primarily issues regulations directed to other Federal agencies. These regulations include records management, information services, and information security. For example, records management regulations directed to Federal agencies concern the proper management and disposition of Federal records. Through the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), NARA also issues Governmentwide regulations concerning information security classification, controlled unclassified information (CUI), and declassification programs; through the Office of Government Information Services, NARA issues Governmentwide regulations concerning Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dispute resolution services and FOIA ombudsman functions; and through the Office of the Federal Register, NARA issues regulations concerning publishing Federal documents in the
NARA regulations directed to the public primarily address access to and use of our historically valuable holdings, including archives, donated historical materials, and Presidential records. NARA also issues regulations relating to the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) grant programs.
NARA has two regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2018, which are included in The Regulatory Plan. The first priority is to update our electronic records management regulation to account for changes to 44 U.S.C. 3302 which require NARA to issue standards for digital reproductions of records with
The second priority this fiscal year is a new regulation for the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). The Open Government Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524) amended the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended), and created OGIS within the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). OGIS is finalizing regulations, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 2104, to clarify, elaborate upon, and specify the procedures in place for Federal agencies and public requesters who seek OGIS's dispute resolution services within the FOIA system. The regulation will describe one of the areas in which OGIS carries out its role as the Federal FOIA Ombudsman by working with Federal agencies to provide an alternative to litigation in resolving FOIA disputes.
OPM works in several broad categories to recruit, retain and honor a world-class workforce for the American people.
• We manage Federal job announcement postings at
• We conduct background investigations for prospective employees and security clearances across government, with hundreds of thousands of cases each year.
• We uphold and defend the merit systems in Federal civil service, making sure that the Federal workforce uses fair practices in all aspects of personnel management.
• We manage pension benefits for retired Federal employees and their families. We also administer health and other insurance programs for Federal employees and retirees.
• We provide training and development programs and other management tools for Federal employees and agencies.
• In many cases, we take the lead in developing, testing and implementing new Governmentwide policies that relate to personnel issues.
Altogether, we work to make the Federal Government America's model employer for the 21st century.
Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” (February 24, 2017), required OPM to appoint a Regulatory Reform Officer to oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies and establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force) to review and evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification, consistent with applicable law.
These reform initiatives and policies include Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (January 30, 2017), section 6 of Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (January 18, 2011), and Executive Order 12866.
In relation to Executive Order 13771, many of OPM's agenda items are either exempt under section 4(b) of the order, or deregulatory. OPM published the following deregulatory item in fiscal year 2018.
•
The agenda includes one rule that promotes open government and uses disclosure as a regulatory tool.
•
OPM also has a number of regulatory items that focus on Administration priorities and Executive Orders. These include:
•
•
A fully searchable e-Agenda is available for viewing in its entirety at
Alexys Stanley, (202) 606-1183 or
(1) Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in the
(A) Descriptions of its central and field organization and the established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a uniformed service, the members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain information, make submittals or requests, or obtain decisions;
(B) statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available;
(C) rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations;
(D) substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency; and
(E) each amendment, revision, or repeal of the foregoing.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is a federal corporation created under title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to guarantee the payment of pension benefits earned by nearly 40 million workers and retirees in private-sector defined benefit plans. PBGC is currently responsible for the benefits of about 1.5 million people in failed plans. PBGC receives no tax revenues. Operations are financed by insurance premiums, investment income, assets from pension plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from the companies formerly responsible for the trusteed plans. PBGC administers two insurance programs—one for single-employer defined benefit pension plans and a second for multiemployer defined benefit pension plans.
•
•
At the end of fiscal year (FY) 2017, PBGC had a deficit of $10.9 billion in its single-employer insurance program and $65 billion in its multiemployer insurance program. PBGC's projections show that the financial position of the single-employer program is likely to continue to improve, but the multiemployer program is in dire financial condition and likely to run out of funds by the end of fiscal year 2025. If that happens, PBGC will not have the money to pay benefits at the current guarantee levels to participants in insolvent plans.
To carry out its statutory functions, PBGC issues regulations on such matters as how to pay premiums, when reports are due, what benefits are covered by the insurance program, how to terminate a plan, the liability for underfunding, and how withdrawal liability works for multiemployer plans. PBGC follows a regulatory approach that seeks to encourage the continuation and maintenance of defined benefit plans. So, in developing new regulations and reviewing existing regulations, PBGC seeks to reduce burdens on plans, employers, and participants, and to ease and simplify employer compliance wherever possible. PBGC particularly strives to meet the needs of small businesses that sponsor defined benefit plans. In all such efforts, PBGC's mission is to protect the retirement incomes of plan participants.
PBGC's regulatory/deregulatory objectives and priorities are developed in the context of the Corporation's statutory purposes:
• To encourage the continuation and maintenance of voluntary private pension plans;
• To provide for the timely and uninterrupted payment of pension benefits; and
• To keep premiums at the lowest possible levels.
Pension plans and the statutory framework in which they are maintained and terminated are complex. Despite this complexity, PBGC is committed to issuing simple, understandable, flexible, and timely regulations to help affected parties. PBGC's regulatory/deregulatory objectives and priorities for the fiscal year are:
• To enhance the retirement security of workers and retirees;
• To implement statutory changes through regulatory actions that ease compliance burdens and achieve maximum net benefits; and
• To simplify existing regulations and reduce burden.
PBGC endeavors in all its regulatory and deregulatory actions to promote clarity and reduce burden with the goal that net cost impact on the public is zero or less overall.
Most of PBGC's regulatory/deregulatory actions are the result of its ongoing retrospective review program to identify and ameliorate inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and requirements made irrelevant over time. PBGC undertook a review of its multiemployer plan regulations and has identified rules in which it can reduce burden and clarify guidance. For example, PBGC has proposed reductions in actuarial valuation requirements for certain small terminated multiemployer pension plans, notice requirements on plan sponsors of plans terminated by mass withdrawal, and reporting and disclosure requirements on sponsors of insolvent plans (“Terminated and Insolvent Multiemployer Plans and Duties of Plan Sponsors” RIN 1212-AB38). Another proposal would simplify how multiemployer plans calculate withdrawal liability where changes in contributions or benefits are, by statute, to be disregarded in that calculation (“Methods for Computing Withdrawal Liability” RIN 1212-AB36).
PBGC plans to propose a “housekeeping” rulemaking project to make miscellaneous technical corrections, clarifications, and improvements to PBGC's regulations, such as the reportable events regulation (particularly addressing duplicative active participant reduction event reporting) and the regulation on annual financial and actuarial information reporting (“Miscellaneous Corrections, Clarifications, and Improvements” RIN 1212-AB34). PBGC expects to undertake periodic rulemaking projects like this that deal with minor technical and clarifying issues. The “Benefit Payments” proposal (RIN 1212-AB27) would make clarifications and codify policies in PBGC's benefit payments and valuation regulations involving payment of lump sums, entitlement to a benefit, changes to benefit form, partial benefit distributions, and valuation of plan assets. PBGC's regulatory review also identified a need to update the rules for administrative review of agency decisions (RIN 1212-AB35).
A couple of proposed rulemakings would update PBGC's regulations and policies to ensure that the actuarial and economic content remains current. The modifications PBGC is considering at this time are to interest and mortality assumptions under the asset allocation regulation (RIN 1212-AA55), and the methodology for setting interest
PBGC takes into account the special needs and concerns of small businesses in making policy. For example, the “Terminated and Insolvent Multiemployer Plans and Duties of Plan Sponsors” proposal discussed above would reduce valuation and reporting burdens primarily on small multiemployer plans, which generally are comprised of small employers.
PBGC encourages public participation in the regulatory process. For example, PBGC created a new page on its website that highlights when there are opportunities to comment on proposed rules, information collections, and other
The mission of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is to maintain and strengthen the Nation's economy by enabling the establishment and viability of small businesses and by assisting in the physical and economic recovery of communities after disasters. In carrying out this mission, SBA strives to improve the economic environment for small businesses, including those in rural areas, in areas that have significantly higher unemployment and lower income levels than the Nation's averages, and those in traditionally underserved markets. SBA has several financial, procurement, and technical assistance programs that provide a crucial foundation for those starting or growing a small business. For example, the Agency serves as a guarantor of loans made to small businesses by lenders that participate in SBA's programs and also licenses small business investment companies that make equity and debt investments in qualifying small businesses using a combination of privately raised capital and SBA guaranteed leverage. SBA also funds various training and mentoring programs to help small businesses, particularly businesses owned by women, veterans, minorities, and other historically underrepresented groups, gain access to Federal government contracting opportunities. The Agency also provides management and technical assistance to existing or potential small business owners through various grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts. Finally, as a vital part of its purpose, SBA also provides direct financial assistance to homeowners, renters, and businesses to repair or replace their property in the aftermath of a disaster.
SBA's regulatory policy reflects a commitment to developing regulations that reduce or eliminate the burden on the public, in particular the Agency's core constituents—small businesses. SBA's regulatory process generally includes an assessment of the costs and benefits of the regulations as required by Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review;” Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review;” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. SBA's program offices are particularly invested in finding ways to reduce the burden imposed by the Agency's core activities in its loan, grant, innovation, and procurement programs.
On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” 82 FR 9339, which established principles for prioritizing an agency's regulatory and deregulatory actions. E.O. 13771 was followed by E.O. 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Agenda,” 82 FR 12285 (February 24, 2017), which identified processes for agencies to follow in overseeing their regulatory programs. This Agenda was prepared in accordance with both E.O. 13771 and E.O. 13777, and SBA will continue to work with the Office of Management and Budget to fully integrate the Executive Orders and to implement OMB guidance into SBA's rulemaking processes. As part of that effort, SBA issued a Request for Information in the
SBA promotes transparency, collaboration, and public participation in its rulemaking process. To that end, SBA routinely solicits comments on its regulations, even those that are not subject to the public notice and comment requirement under the Administrative Procedures Act. Where appropriate, SBA also conducts hearings, webinars, and other public events as part of its regulatory process.
The SBA Strategic Plan serves as the foundation for the regulations that the Agency will develop during the next twelve months. This Strategic Plan provides a framework for strengthening, streamlining, and simplifying SBA's programs while leveraging collaborative relationships with other agencies and the private sector to maximize the tools small business owners and entrepreneurs need to drive American innovation and strengthen the economy. The plan sets out four strategic goals: (1) Support small business revenue and job growth; (2) build healthy entrepreneurial ecosystems and create business friendly environments; (3) restore small businesses and communities after disasters; and (4) strengthen SBA's ability to serve small businesses. In order to achieve these goals SBA will, among other objectives, focus on:
• Expanding access to capital through SBA's extensive lending network;
• Helping small business exporters succeed in global markets;
• Ensuring federal contracting and innovation goals are met or exceeded;
• Empowering veterans and military families who want to start or grow their business;
• Delivering entrepreneurial counseling and training services in collaboration with resource partners; and
• Enhancing program oversight and risk management, and improving recovery of taxpayer assets.
The regulations reported in SBA's semi-annual regulatory agenda and plan
As part of its efforts to fulfill the objectives of E.O. 13771, SBA has completed a comprehensive review of the regulations for the Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program. As a result of that review, this rule proposes amendments that would eliminate ambiguities in the regulations and reduce the regulatory burdens imposed on HUBZone small business concerns and government agencies. The amendments would make it easier for small business concerns to understand and comply with the program's requirements and make the HUBZone program a more attractive option for procuring federal agencies.
For example, the rule proposes to eliminate the burden on HUBZone small businesses to continually demonstrate that they meet all eligibility requirements at the time of each HUBZone contract offer and award. The rule would instead require only annual recertification. This reduced burden on certified HUBZone small businesses would allow a firm to remain eligible for future HUBZone contracts for an entire year, without requiring it to demonstrate that it continues to meet all HUBZone requirements. The rule also proposes to eliminate the requirement for the concern to relocate in order to attempt to maintain its HUBZone status when the area where the business is located or a qualifying employee resides loses its HUBZone status.
In addition to carrying out the Administration's regulatory policy, removal of these and similar regulatory requirements would make it easier for firms to meet the eligibility requirements for HUBZone contracts, and help SBA to achieve its strategic objective to simplify access to federal contracting for small businesses.
In order to protect the safety and soundness of its business loan programs, SBA's Office of Credit Risk Management (OCRM) is responsible for monitoring performance of the various types of lenders that participate in these loan programs, managing the programs' credit risks, and enforcing applicable program regulations and procedures. The recently enacted Small Business 7(a) Lending Oversight Reform Act of 2018 increases SBA's authority to supervise lenders and enforce prudent lending standards. This rule will propose the regulatory amendments necessary to implement the new authorities. The amendments will clarify or add conditions for informal and formal enforcement actions, including supervisory letters, voluntary letters, suspensions or revocations of lending authority. The rule will also propose to implement the statutory provision that authorizes lenders to appeal enforcement actions to SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals.
SBA recognizes the importance of maintaining a comprehensive lender oversight and risk management system. As evidence of its commitment to a robust credit risk management system, SBA has identified lender oversight and risk management as one of the Agency's strategic objectives in its FY 2018-2022 Strategic Plan. After SBA has implemented the statutorily required amendments, the revised regulations will enhance SBA's oversight capabilities, reduce risk, and ensure the integrity of the small business loan programs.
SBA is proposing to amend its regulations to implement amendments to the Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) and Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business (EDWOSB) Federal Contract Program that were authorized by section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015. Based on this authority, SBA is proposing to create a certification program for its WOSB and EDWOSB contracting program that, once implemented, will streamline the review process and provide an option for small businesses that reduces their certification costs. The proposed changes would further SBA's strategic objectives to simplify the process and increase contracting opportunities for small businesses. The proposed reduction in certification costs would also further the regulatory reform objectives of E.O. 13771.
The current WOSB and EDWOSB contracting program permits firms to self-certify for the program or to be certified by a third party certifier (TPC). The program also currently requires firms to submit documentation to an SBA-maintained electronic document repository. SBA regulations currently require contracting officers to check the repository for documents submitted by every WOSB or EDWOSB contract awardee. The rule will propose the establishment of an SBA certification process, removal of both the self-certification option and the requirement for contracting officers to review the repository documents. Shifting responsibilities to SBA and streamlining the review process will enable contracting officers to focus more on awarding awards, which should lead to an increased number of set-aside or sole source contracts for WOSBs and EDWOSBs. This outcome would help SBA to achieve its strategic objectives to ensure Federal agencies meet or exceed their small business contracting goals.
While it is important to implement rules that do not unnecessarily burden small businesses, SBA also has a responsibility to ensure that its programs are serving only those businesses that meet program eligibility requirements. To that end, this rule will also propose standards for increased oversight in order to ensure continuing eligibly of certified program participants.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Administrator shall issue regulations, after opportunity for notice and comment.
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) was established to codify uniform policies for acquisition of supplies and services by executive agencies. It is issued and maintained jointly under the statutory authorities granted to the Secretary of Defense, Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, known as the FAR Council. Overall statutory authority is found at chapters 11 and 13 of title 41 of the United States Code.
Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” (February 24, 2017), required the FAR Council to oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies. The reform initiatives and policies include Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (January 30, 2017), section 6 of Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (January 18, 2011), and Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (September 30, 1993). In response to Executive Order 13777, the FAR Council reviewed and evaluated existing policies and regulations and identified regulations that could be repealed, replaced, or modified to reduce the regulatory burden. In relation to Executive Order 13771, the FAR Council conducts analysis of the regulatory cost or savings impact for agenda items.
During Fiscal Year 2018, the FAR Council completed two (2) deregulatory actions.
• The FAR Council issued a final rule (case 2015-039) on May 1, 2018 to increase the dollar threshold for the audit of prime contract settlement proposals and subcontract settlements submitted in the event of contract termination, from $100,000 to $750,000. The increased threshold reduces the number of terminated contracts that require settlement audits, and enables contracting officers to more quickly deobligate the excess funds from terminated contracts under the threshold. Contractors will save costs associated with the preparation for termination settlement audits and will have improved cash flow from faster final settlement under the threshold.
• The FAR Council issued a final rule (case 2017-007) on May 1, 2018 to raise the threshold for task- and delivery-order protests for DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard from $10 million to $25 million, except for a protest on the grounds that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract. The increased threshold will result in savings for the agencies involved in processing the protests and will benefit contractors who win awards and will no longer need to expend
The Fiscal Year 2019 Unified Agenda consists of forty-eight (48) agenda items of which the following seven (7) have been identified as deregulatory.
The FAR Council is required to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation to implement statutory and policy initiatives. The FAR Council prioritization is focused on initiatives that:
FAR Case 2018-004, Increased Micro-Purchase and Simplified Acquisition Thresholds, will increase the micro-purchase threshold (MPT) to $10,000; increase the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT) to $250,000; and make additional changes related to the thresholds. The increase in thresholds will allow the use of more streamlined procedures which reduces the time and effort needed to make an award. Some contractors will benefit from reduced contract compliance requirements.
FAR Case 2018-013, Exemption of Commercial and COTS Item Contracts from Certain Laws and Regulations, will implement revisions to the FAR to exempt commercial and COTS items from laws identified by the FAR Council or Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy. This reduction will allow contractors to use existing commercial practices, reducing compliance costs from requirements unique to the Government.
FAR Case 2018-014, Increasing Task-order Level Competition, will provide an exception to the requirement to consider price as an evaluation factor, for the award of services to be acquired on an hourly rate basis under certain indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity contracts and Federal Supply Schedule contracts. Meaningful evaluation of cost and price takes place later, when task or delivery order proposals are evaluated. The exception will allow procurement officials to focus on establishing and evaluating non-price factors at the earlier contract award level, resulting in more meaningful distinctions among offerors.
FAR Case 2017-004, Use of Acquisition 360 to Encourage Vendor Feedback, will address soliciting contractor feedback on how well agencies are doing in awarding and administering contracts. This will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of agency acquisition activities.
FAR Case 2016-005, Effective Communication between Government and Industry, encourages agency acquisition personnel to talk to industry.
FAR Case 2018-017, Prohibition on Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment, will prohibit the procurement of covered equipment and services from Huawei Technologies Company, ZTE Corporation, Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Technology Company or Dahua Technology Company and any subsidiaries or affiliates. The prohibition is implemented to protect Government information systems from threats.
FAR Case 2018-010, Use of Product and Services of Kaspersky Lab, prohibits any department, agency, organization or other element of the Federal Government from using hardware, software or services developed by Kaspersky Lab or any entity in which Kaspersky Lab has a majority ownership. The prohibition is implemented to protect Government information systems from threats.
FAR Case 2017-018, Violation of Arms Control Treaties or Agreements with the United States, prohibits, with some exceptions, the heads of executive agencies from entering into, renewing or extending a contract for the procurement of products or services from any persons involved in activities that violate arms control treaties or agreements with the United States. The prohibition reduces potential threats to the security of the United States and our allies.
FAR Case 2016-011, Revision of Limitations on Subcontracting, will implement SBA's regulatory clarifications concerning the nonmanufacturer rule, and how much a small business may subcontract to a large business. These were inconsistent across small business programs, such as whether a HUBZone small business could subcontract to other HUBZone small businesses. This rule revises and standardizes these requirements from multiple FAR clauses to two.
FAR Case 2018-003, Credit for Lower-Tier Small Business Subcontracting will allow large businesses to receive small business subcontracting credit for subcontracts that their subcontractors award to small businesses.
Dated: July 27, 2018.
We administer the Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance programs under title II of the Social Security Act (Act), the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program under title XVI of the Act, and the Special Veterans Benefits program under title VIII of the Act. As directed by Congress, we also assist in administering portions of the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Act. Our regulations codify the requirements for eligibility and entitlement to benefits and our procedures for administering these programs. Generally, our regulations do not impose burdens on the private sector or on State or local governments, except for the States' Disability Determination Services. We fully fund the Disability Determination Services in advance or via reimbursement for necessary costs in making disability determinations.
The entries in our regulatory plan (plan) represent issues of major importance to the Agency. Through our regulatory plan, we intend to:
A. Update the medical criteria used to evaluate disability applications to keep pace with medicine, science, technology, and workforce changes;
B. Reduce the hearings backlog and improve the disability appeals process;
C. Update SSA disability evaluation criteria and the frequency of continuing disability reviews;
D. Combat Social Security fraud, impose civil monetary penalties for specific violations of the Social Security Act, and clarify that electronic and internet communications are included in the prohibitions against misusing SSA's names, symbols, and emblems; and
E. Update our Freedom of Information Act and Privacy and Disclosure rules.
We designate all of the proposed regulations in this plan as “fully or partially exempt” under Executive Order (E.O.) 13771. In compliance with the Administration's Regulatory Reform efforts, as prescribed by E.O. 13771 and E.O. 13777, SSA is committed to engaging in regulatory activity only when strictly necessary and to reducing regulatory burden wherever possible. Accordingly, our Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan include only those regulatory activities needed to administer our Social Security benefits and payments programs. Moreover, the Agenda includes an item to remove outdated regulatory sections from the Code of Federal Regulations. Finally, we remain committed to innovate in ways that ease burden on the public even outside the realm of formal deregulation, such as through developing online reporting and application tools.
Our regulations will:
• Selectively update the medical listings for evaluating digestive, cardiovascular, and skin disorders (RIN 0960-AG65);
• Increase the number of disability hearings held via video teleconference, where appropriate, to help make the hearings process more efficient (RIN 0960-AI09);
• Clarify that administrative appeals judges from our Appeals Council may hold hearings and issue decisions (RIN 0960-AI25);
• Remove the education category of “inability to communicate in English” to help us more accurately assess the vocational impact of education in the disability determination process (0960-AH86);
• Add a new category to the existing medical diary categories that we use to schedule continuing disability reviews and revise the criteria we follow to place a case in each of the categories (0960-AI27);
• Clarify our rules regarding the redetermination of entitlement when fraud or similar fault is involved (RIN 0960-AI10);
• Impose that SSA can assess the maximum allowable civil monetary penalty for certain violations of the Social Security Act (RIN 0960-AH91);
• Clarify that electronic and internet communications are included in the prohibitions against misusing SSA's names, symbols, and emblems (0960-AI04);
• Update our Freedom of Information Act policies to reflect recent legislation (RIN 0960-AI07);
• Allow SSA to create a new Privacy Act exemption category, enabling the retention of important records related to security and suitability (RIN 0960-AH97); and
• Clarify that written consent includes electronic consent, in compliance with recent legislation (RIN 0960-AI38).
Our regulation in the final rule stage will:
• Comprehensively update the medical listings for evaluating musculoskeletal disorders (RIN 0960-AG38); and
• Allow SSA to create a new Privacy Act exemption category, enabling the retention of important records containing investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes (RIN 0960-AI08).
Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (January 18, 2011), SSA regularly engages in retrospective review and analysis for multiple existing regulatory initiatives. These initiatives may be proposed or completed actions, and they do not necessarily appear in The Regulatory Plan. You can find more information on these completed rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda at
This proposed rule is not required by statute or court order.
Joanna Firmin, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security Administration, Office of Medical Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
This update will replace the two following systems of records currently reflected in 401.85:
(iii) Pursuant to subsection (k)(5) of the Privacy Act:
(A) The Investigatory Material Compiled for Security and Suitability Purposes System, SSA; and,
(B) The Suitability for Employment Records, SSA.
42 U.S.C. 1320b-10
206(d) of Pub. L. 103-296, the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994, 108 Stat. 1464, 1509.
William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
We expect adjudicators to support the change in the framework of the text because it makes the guidance in the introductory text and listings easier to access and understand.
Cheryl A. Williams, Director, Social Security Administration, Office of Medical Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
Brian J. Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
It is required for compliance with the Privacy Act.
• Develops mandatory product safety standards or bans when other efforts are inadequate to address a safety hazard, or where required by statute;
• obtains repair, replacement, or refunds for defective products that present a substantial product hazard;
• develops information and education campaigns about the safety of consumer products;
• participates in the development or revision of voluntary product safety standards; and
• follows statutory mandates.
Unless directed otherwise by congressional mandate, when deciding which of these approaches to take in any specific case, the CPSC gathers and analyzes data about the nature and extent of the risk presented by the product. The Commission's rules at 16 CFR 1009.8 require the Commission to consider, among other factors, the following criteria, when deciding the level of priority for any particular project:
• Frequency and severity of injury;
• causality of injury;
• chronic illness and future injuries;
• costs and benefits of Commission action;
• unforeseen nature of the risk;
• vulnerability of the population at risk;
• probability of exposure to the hazard; and
• additional criteria that warrant Commission attention.
In 2006, the Commission granted a petition requesting a rule to establish performance standards for a system to reduce or prevent injuries from contacting the blade of a table saw. The Commission has since issued a proposed rule under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). The regulatory proceeding could result in several actions, one of which could be
The Commission has been considering options to reduce deaths and injuries related to portable generators, particularly those involving carbon monoxide poisoning. In 2016, the Commission issued a proposed rule under the CPSA. The regulatory proceeding could result in several actions, one of which could be the development of a mandatory standard.
In October 2016, staff delivered a briefing package with a draft notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to the Commission. In November 2016, the Commission voted to approve the NPRM. The notice was published in the
Two voluntary standards now include requirements intended to address the CO poisoning hazard. Staff is assessing those standards, and in FY 2019 staff will prepare a final rule briefing package presenting staff's assessment and staff will deliver it to the Commission.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) is an independent agency charged by its enabling statute, the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), with protecting American consumers from “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” in the marketplace. The Commission strives to ensure that consumers benefit from a vigorously competitive marketplace. The Commission's work is rooted in a belief that competition, based on truthful and non-misleading information about products and services, provides consumers the best choice of products and services at the lowest prices.
The Commission pursues its goal of promoting competition in the marketplace through two different but complementary approaches. Through its consumer protection activities, the Commission seeks to ensure that consumers receive accurate, truthful, and non-misleading information in the marketplace. At the same time, to ensure that consumers have a choice of products and services at competitive prices and quality, the marketplace must be policed for anticompetitive business practices and to prohibit anticompetitive mergers. These two complementary missions make the Commission unique insofar as it is the nation's only Federal agency with this combination of statutory authority to protect consumers.
The Commission is charged with the responsibility of issuing and enforcing regulations under a number of statutes, including 16 trade regulation rules promulgated pursuant to the FTC Act and numerous regulations issued pursuant to certain credit, financial, and marketing practice statutes
For the remainder of the
The Commission is, first and foremost, a civil law enforcement agency. It pursues its mandate to enhance competition and protect consumers primarily through case-by-case enforcement of the FTC Act and other statutes. The FTC estimates that, in FY 2017, the agency saved consumers more than $3.7 billion through its competition enforcement efforts and more than $1.29 billion through its consumer protection enforcement actions.
A major focus of the FTC's law enforcement efforts is fighting fraud. The Commission's anti-fraud program tracks down and stops some of the most egregious scams that prey on U.S. consumers—often, the most vulnerable consumers who can least afford to lose money. Below are a few examples of the variety of frauds that the Commission has recently pursued, and ways that the Commission leverages its limited resources to do so effectively.
•
•
•
One of the FTC's principal responsibilities is to prevent mergers that may substantially lessen competition. Under the Hart-Scott-
For example, the FTC challenged a proposed $285 million acquisition by J.M. Smucker Co. of Conagra Brands, Inc.'s Wesson cooking oil brand due to concerns that the transaction would illegally reduce competition in the United States for canola and vegetable oils. Smucker currently owns the Crisco brand, and by acquiring the Wesson brand, it would control at least 70 percent of the market for branded canola and vegetable oils sold to grocery stores and other retailers. Once challenged, the parties abandoned the transaction.
The courts continue to validate the Commission's competition work. In
In
In
In addition to consumer protection and competition enforcement matters, the agency is continuing its efforts in reforming regulations and increasing agency transparency. For example, in February, the Commission announced a revised regulatory review schedule for 2018.
Guides for the Nursery Industry, 16 CFR part 18;
Test Procedures and Labeling Standards for Recycled Oil, 16 CFR part 311;
Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising, 16 CFR part 436; and
Identity Theft Rules, 16 CFR part 681.
In addition, the FTC continues to streamline the Hart-Scott-Rodino Rules (or HSR Rules), including by clarifying Antitrust Improvements Act Notification and Report Form for Certain Mergers and Acquisitions (HSR Form) and simplifying notification procedures.
Further streamlining will occur as the FTC continues its regular, systematic review of all rules and guides, assessing their costs and benefits to consumers and businesses. In addition, the agency continues to examine ways in which it can streamline its investigations to reduce the burden on businesses and the Commission alike. For example, in response to criticisms regarding the length of time it takes to resolve complex merger cases, the FTC is developing better mechanisms to track the timing of milestone events throughout a merger investigation. The goal is to improve understanding of the factors that determine the length of a merger investigation and, in particular, to highlight whether those factors are within the control of the FTC, the merging parties, or others. Consistent with confidentiality obligations, the FTC intends to make public as much of this data as possible, to encourage additional dialogue among interested stakeholders regarding ways to streamline the merger review process.
The agency also has focused its advocacy efforts to reduce regulatory burdens and their associated costs at the state and federal level. A few of these efforts are described below.
(1)
State-by-state licensing rules can be especially costly to workers who seek to move to another state or to offer services across state lines. These costs not only impact workers, but may also harm consumers by reducing availability and quality, and increasing the price, of services and goods offered by licensed professionals. Restrictions on license portability across state lines are particularly burdensome for the families of military service members who move frequently, as military spouses often work in licensed occupations.
On November 7, 2017, the Task Force hosted a roundtable to examine empirical evidence on the effects of state occupational licensure.
(2)
As discussed below, the Commission is also focused on fostering innovation in competition and consumer protection; consumer privacy; small business assistance and advice on data security; and protecting military consumers.
For example, the FTC's experience in consumer privacy enforcement has addressed practices offline, online, and in the mobile environment by large, well-known companies and lesser-known players alike. For example, electronic toy manufacturer VTech paid $650,000 to settle FTC charges that the company violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting personal information from children without providing direct notice and obtaining their parent's consent, and failing to take reasonable steps to secure the data it collected.
The FTC held its third annual PrivacyCon, a conference examining cutting-edge research and trends in protecting consumer privacy and security, on February 28, 2018. The 2018 event focused on the economics of privacy, including how to weigh the costs and benefits of security-by-design
The FTC's cross-border enforcement cooperation covers the full range of FTC investigations and cases. A recent example is a sweep of elder fraud cases involving assistance from the International Mass-Marketing Fraud Working Group (IMMFWG), which the FTC co-chairs along with the Department of Justice and UK law enforcement.
A key focus of the FTC's international privacy efforts is support for global interoperability of data privacy regimes. The FTC works with the U.S. Department of Commerce on three key cross-border data transfer programs for the commercial sector: The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (“APEC”) Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CPBR) System. The Privacy Shield programs provide legal mechanisms for companies to transfer personal data from the EU and Switzerland to the United States with strong privacy protections. The APEC CBPR system is a voluntary, enforceable
The FTC's international competition program supports the Bureau of Competition in the international aspects of their investigations and enforcement, cooperates with competition agencies around the world on enforcement and policy, and promotes convergence of international antitrust policies toward best practice.
The FTC plays a lead role in the International Competition Network (ICN), which includes almost every competition agency in the world and provides a leading forum for international cooperation and convergence. The FTC's activities in the ICN include: Serving on the Steering Group; co-chairing the Merger Working Group where it leads projects to develop recommended practices for merger notification and analysis, and practical guidance on investigative techniques; leading the ICN's work on procedural fairness in antitrust investigations; leading the ICN Training on Demand project, which is creating a comprehensive curriculum of video training materials on competition law and practice; and co-chairing the Advocacy and Implementation Network. At the ICN's annual conference in March 2018, the ICN adopted the Merger Working Group's revised Recommended Practices on international enforcement cooperation, timing of notification, and review periods. The working group also presented results of its agency survey on vertical merger analysis and related economic assessment.
The FTC continues to help lead the work of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Competition Committee, including in its current strategic projects on procedural fairness, the digital economy, and the application of competition laws to intellectual property rights. The agency also participates actively in the competition components of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).
Within the U.S. government, the FTC works closely with colleagues in other agencies in intergovernmental fora that deal with competition matters, including challenges that arise from the enforcement of foreign competition laws. The FTC is also involved in issues at the intersection of trade and competition policy, including as part of the U.S. delegation that negotiates competition chapters of trade agreements.
In addition, the Commission established the Franchise Rule Alternative Law Enforcement Program in partnership with the International Franchise Association (IFA), a nonprofit organization that represents both franchisors and franchisees. This program assists franchisors found to have a minor or technical violation of the Franchise Rule in complying with the rule.
The Commission continued its “second chance” policy for certain minor and inadvertent violations of the textile and wool labeling rules, which can apply to small businesses. The Textile Corporate Leniency Policy helps increase overall compliance with the rules while minimizing the burden on business of correcting inadvertent labeling errors that are not likely to injure consumers. Since the Policy was announced (2002), at least 242 companies have been granted “leniency” for self-reported minor violations of the FTC textile regulations.
In 1992, the Commission implemented a program to review its rules and guides regularly. The Commission's review program is patterned after provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612 and complies with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. The Commission's 10-year program also is consistent with section 5(a) of Executive Order 12866, which directs executive branch agencies to develop a plan to reevaluate periodically all of their significant existing regulations.
As part of its continuing 10-year review plan, the Commission examines the effect of rules and guides on small businesses and on the marketplace in general. These reviews may lead to the revision or rescission of rules and guides to ensure that the Commission's consumer protection and competition goals are achieved efficiently and at the least cost to business. Pursuant to this program, the Commission has rescinded 37 rules and guides promulgated under the FTC's general authority and updated dozens of others since the early 1990s.
The FTC continues to take a fresh look at its long-standing regulatory review process. On February 20, 2018, the Commission issued a revised 10-year review schedule.
In 2018, the Commission initiated or will initiate reviews of four of its rules or guides: (1) Test Procedures and Labeling Standards for Recycled Oil, 16 CFR 311; (2) Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising, 16 CFR 436; (3) Identity Theft Rules, 16 CFR 681; and (4) The Nursery Guides, 16 CFR 18.
The Commission is continuing review of a number of rules and guides, which are discussed below.
On December 8, 2017, the Commission announced that it would be holding a public workshop relating to the NPRM and other issues relating to competition in the marketplace and consumer access to contact lenses.
Staff anticipates submitting a recommendation to the Commission by October 2018 that would propose clarifying the definition of foreign issuer in the HSR Rules. The definition in the HSR Rules for U.S. and Foreign persons and issuers focuses on three tests: (1) Location of incorporation, (2) country whose laws organized under, and (3) principal offices. The term “principal offices” is not defined in the rules and is often a source of confusion for parties. This rulemaking would provide a definition.
Since the publication of the 2017 Regulatory Plan, the Commission has issued the following final rules or taken other actions to close other rulemaking or guide proceedings. These final rules continue to be consistent with the President's Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and Principles contained in Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13771.
The actions under consideration inform and protect consumers, while minimizing the regulatory burdens on legitimate businesses. The Commission continues to identify and weigh the costs and benefits of proposed regulatory actions and possible alternative actions and to seek and consider the broadest practicable array of comment from affected consumers, businesses, and the public at large. In sum, the Commission's regulatory actions are aimed at efficiently and fairly promoting the ability of “private markets to protect or improve the health and safety of the public, the environment, or the well-being of the American people.”
The Commission has no proposed rules that would be a “significant regulatory action” under the definition in Executive Order 12866.
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a sector of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive order.
In 1988, Congress adopted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) (Pub. L. 100-497, 102 Stat. 2475) with a primary purpose of providing “a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments.” IGRA established the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or the Commission) to protect such gaming, amongst other things, as a means of generating Tribal revenue for strengthening Tribal governance and Tribal communities.
At its core, Indian gaming is a function of sovereignty exercised by Tribal Governments. In addition, the Federal government maintains a government-to-government relationship with the tribes—a responsibility of the NIGC. Thus, while the Agency is committed to strong regulation of Indian gaming, the Commission is equally committed to strengthening government-to-government relations by engaging in meaningful consultation with Tribes to fulfill IGRA's intent. The NIGC's vision is to adhere to principles of good government, including transparency to promote Agency accountability and fiscal responsibility, to operate consistently to ensure fairness and clarity in the administration of IGRA, and to respect the responsibilities of each sovereign to fully promote Tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, a strong workforce, and strong tribal governments. The NIGC is fully committed to working with Tribes to ensure the integrity of the industry by exercising its regulatory responsibilities through technical assistance, compliance, and enforcement activities.
As an independent regulatory agency, the NIGC has been performing a retrospective review of its existing regulations well before Executive Order 13771 was issued on January 30, 2017. The NIGC, however, recognizes the importance of Executive Order 13771 and its regulatory review is being conducted in the spirit of Executive Order 13771, to identify those regulations that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with input from the public. In addition, as required by Executive Order 13175, issued on November 6, 2000, the Commission has been conducting government-to-government consultations with Tribes regarding each regulation's relevancy, consistency in application, and limitations or barriers to implementation, based on the Tribes' experiences. The consultation process is also intended to result in the identification of areas for improvement and needed amendments, if any, new regulations, and the possible repeal of outdated regulations.
The following Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated with the review:
More specifically, the NIGC is currently considering promulgating new regulations in the following areas: (i) Amendments to its regulatory definitions to conform to the newly promulgated rules and provide clarity; (ii) updates or revisions to its management contract regulations to address the current state of the industry; (iii) the review and revision of the minimum internal control standards (MICS) for Class II gaming; (iv) regulation that would provide a preference to qualified Indian-owned businesses when purchasing goods or services for the Commission at a fair market price; (v) the review and revision of the minimum technical standards for Class II gaming; and (vi) updates or revisions to the existing audit regulations to reduce cost burdens for small or charitable gaming operations. The Commission has decided to suspend the Class III minimum internal control standards at 25 CFR part 542 and publish updated standards as guidance documents.
NIGC is committed to staying up to date on developments in the gaming industry, including best practices and emerging technologies. Further, the Commission aims to continue reviewing its regulations to determine whether they are overly burdensome to smaller, rural operations. The NIGC anticipates that the ongoing consultation with Tribes will continue to play an important role in the development of the NIGC's rulemaking efforts.
Under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates the possession and use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material. Our regulatory mission is to license and regulate the Nation's civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, and promote the common defense and security. As part of our mission, we regulate the operation of nuclear power plants and fuel-cycle facilities; the safeguarding of nuclear materials from theft and sabotage; the safe transport, storage, and disposal of radioactive materials and wastes; the decommissioning and safe release for other uses of licensed facilities that are no longer in operation; and the medical, industrial, and research applications of nuclear material. In addition, we license the import and export of radioactive materials.
As part of our regulatory process, we routinely conduct comprehensive regulatory analyses that examine the costs and benefits of contemplated regulations. We have developed internal procedures and programs to ensure that we impose only necessary requirements on our licensees and to review existing regulations to determine whether the requirements imposed are still necessary.
Our regulatory priorities for fiscal year (FY) 2019 reflect our safety and security mission and will enable us to achieve our two strategic goals described in NUREG-1614, Volume 7, “Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2018-2022” (
(1) To ensure the safe use of radioactive materials, and (2) to ensure the secure use of radioactive materials.
This section contains information on some of our most important and significant regulatory actions that we are considering issuing in proposed or final form during FY 2019. For additional information on these regulatory actions and on a broader spectrum of our upcoming regulatory actions, see our portion of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. We also provide additional information on planned rulemaking and petition for rulemaking activities, including priority and schedule, on our website at
The following rulemaking activities meet the requirements of a significant regulatory action in Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” because they are likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90), as amended, requires that the NRC recover approximately 90 percent of its budget authority in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, less the amounts appropriated from the Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, generic homeland security activities, and Inspector General services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, through fees assessed to licensees. Under OBRA-90, the NRC is required to collect the fees for FY 2019, by September 30, 2019.
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda provides summary descriptions of the significant and not significant regulatory and deregulatory actions being developed in agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in conformance with Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” and 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” The agenda also describes regulations affecting small entities as required by section 602 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354. This agenda also identifies regulatory actions that are being reviewed in compliance with section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We invite public comment on those actions as well as any regulation consistent with Executive Order 13563.
USDA has attempted to list all regulations and regulatory reviews pending at the time of publication except for minor and routine or repetitive actions, but some may have been inadvertently missed. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this listing. Also, the dates shown for the steps of each action are estimated and are not commitments to act on or by the date shown.
USDA's complete regulatory agenda is available online at
(1) Rules that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
For this edition of the USDA regulatory agenda, the most important regulatory and deregulatory actions are summarized in a Statement of Regulatory Priorities that is included in the Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online regulatory agenda and in part II of the
For further information on any specific entry shown in this agenda, please contact the person listed for that action. For general comments or inquiries about the agenda, please contact Michael Poe, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720-3257.
Office of the Secretary, Commerce.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In compliance with Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, the Department of Commerce (Commerce), in the spring and fall of each year, publishes in the
Commerce's fall 2018 regulatory agenda includes regulatory activities that are expected to be conducted during the period October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019.
Commerce hereby publishes its fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions pursuant to Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
In this edition of Commerce's regulatory agenda, a list of the most important significant regulatory and deregulatory actions and a Statement of Regulatory Priorities are included in the Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the issue of the
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, Commerce's entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
Within Commerce, the Office of the Secretary and various operating units may issue regulations. Among these operating units, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Bureau of Industry and Security, and the Patent and Trademark Office issue the greatest share of Commerce's regulations.
A large number of regulatory actions reported in the Agenda deal with fishery management programs of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). To avoid repetition of programs and definitions, as well as to provide some understanding of the technical and institutional elements of NMFS' programs, an “Explanation of Information Contained in NMFS Regulatory Entries” is provided below.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
The Council process for developing FMPs and amendments makes it difficult for NMFS to determine the significance and timing of some regulatory actions under consideration by the Councils at the time the semiannual regulatory agenda is published.
Commerce's fall 2018 regulatory agenda follows.
Department of Energy.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared and is making available its portion of the semiannual Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Agenda), including its Regulatory Plan (Plan), pursuant to Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Agenda is a government-wide compilation of upcoming and ongoing regulatory activity, including a brief description of each rulemaking and a timetable for action. The Agenda also includes a list of regulatory actions completed since publication of the last Agenda. The Department of Energy's portion of the Agenda includes regulatory actions called for by statute, including amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) and the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), and programmatic needs of DOE offices.
The internet is the basic means for disseminating the Agenda and providing users the ability to obtain information from the Agenda database. DOE's entire Fall 2018 Regulatory Agenda can be accessed online by going to
Publication in the
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 require the semiannual issuance of an inventory of rulemaking actions under development throughout the Department, offering for public review summarized information about forthcoming regulatory actions.
Ann C. Agnew, Executive Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201; (202) 690-5627.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the Federal government's lead agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves. HHS enhances the health and well-being of Americans by promoting effective health and human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services.
This Agenda presents the regulatory activities that the Department expects to undertake in the foreseeable future to advance this mission. HHS has an agency-wide effort to support the Agenda's purpose of encouraging more effective public participation in the regulatory process. For example, to encourage public participation, we regularly update our regulatory webpage (
The rulemaking abstracts included in this paper issue of the
Office of the Secretary, DHS.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This regulatory agenda is a semiannual summary of projected regulations, existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components. This agenda provides the public with information about DHS's regulatory and deregulatory activity. DHS expects that this information will enable the public to be more aware of, and effectively participate in, the Department's regulatory and deregulatory activity. DHS invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this agenda.
DHS provides this notice pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, Sept. 19, 1980) and Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review” (Sept. 30, 1993) as incorporated in Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011) and Executive Order 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (Jan. 30, 2017), which require the Department to publish a semiannual agenda of regulations. The regulatory agenda is a summary of existing and projected regulations as well as actions completed since the publication of the last regulatory agenda for the Department. DHS's last semiannual regulatory agenda was published on June 11, 2018, at 83 FR 27138.
Beginning in fall 2007, the internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires Federal agencies to publish their regulatory flexibility agendas in the
The semiannual agenda of the Department conforms to the Unified Agenda format developed by the Regulatory Information Service Center.
Nancy Harvey, Policy Analyst, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Room 3636-15, 301 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20528,
Nancy Harvey, Policy Analyst, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Room 3636-15, 301 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20528,
Nancy Harvey, Policy Analyst, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Room 3636-15, 301 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20528,
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This notice provides the semiannual agenda of rules scheduled for review or development between fall 2018 and fall 2019. The Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 require publication of the agenda.
Unless otherwise indicated, all agency contacts are located at the Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.
You should direct all comments and inquiries about these rules to the appropriate agency contact. You should direct general comments relating to the agenda to the Office of Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, at the address above or at 202-208-3181.
With this publication, the Department satisfies the requirement of Executive Order 12866 that the Department publish an agenda of rules that we have issued or expect to issue and of currently effective rules that we have scheduled for review.
Simultaneously, the Department meets the requirement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions includes The Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the
In some cases, the Department has withdrawn rules that were placed on previous agendas for which there has been no publication activity or for which a proposed or interim rule was published. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this agenda. Withdrawal of a rule does not necessarily mean that the Department will not proceed with the rulemaking. Withdrawal allows the Department to assess the action further and determine whether rulemaking is appropriate. Following such an assessment, the Department may determine that certain rules listed as withdrawn under this agenda are appropriate for promulgation. If that determination is made, such rules will comply with Executive Order 13771.
316. Migratory Bird Hunting; 2018-2019 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations
Department of Justice.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Justice is publishing its fall 2018 regulatory agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 to 612 (1988).
Robert Hinchman, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice, Room 4252, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 514-8059.
This edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions includes The Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the internet has been the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, the entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
Office of the Secretary, Labor.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The internet has become the means for disseminating the entirety of the Department of Labor's semiannual regulatory agenda. However, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires publication of a regulatory flexibility agenda in the
Laura M. Dawkins, Director, Office of Regulatory and Programmatic Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room S-2312, Washington, DC 20210; (202) 693-5959.
Executive Order 12866 requires the semiannual publication of an agenda of regulations that contains a listing of all the regulations the Department of Labor expects to have under active consideration for promulgation, proposal, or review during the coming one-year period. The entirety of the Department's semiannual agenda is available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires DOL to publish in the
All interested members of the public are invited and encouraged to let departmental officials know how our regulatory efforts can be improved, and are invited to participate in and comment on the review or development of the regulations listed on the Department's agenda.
RIN: 1210-AB85
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Regulatory Agenda).
The Regulatory and Deregulatory Agenda is a semiannual summary of all current and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. The intent of the Agenda is to provide the public with information about the Department of Transportation's regulatory activity planned for the next 12 months. It is expected that this information will enable the public to more effectively participate in the Department's regulatory process. The public is also invited to submit comments on any aspect of this Agenda.
You should direct all comments and inquiries on the Agenda in general to Jonathan Moss, Assistant General Counsel for Regulation, Office of General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-4723.
You should direct all comments and inquiries on particular items in the Agenda to the individual listed for the regulation or the general rulemaking contact person for the operating administration in appendix B.
A primary goal of the Department of Transportation (Department or DOT) is to allow the public to understand how we make decisions, which necessarily includes being transparent in the way we measure the risks, costs, and benefits of engaging in—or deciding not to engage in—a particular regulatory action. As such, it is our policy to provide an opportunity for public comment on such actions to all interested stakeholders. Above all, transparency and meaningful engagement mandate that regulations should be straightforward, clear, and accessible to any interested stakeholder. The Department also embraces the notion that there should be no more regulations than necessary. We emphasize consideration of non-regulatory solutions and have rigorous processes in place for continual reassessment of existing regulations. These processes provide that regulations and other agency actions are periodically reviewed and, if appropriate, are revised to ensure that they continue to meet the needs for which they were originally designed, and that they remain cost-effective and cost-justified.
To help the Department achieve its goals and in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” (58 FR 51735; Oct. 4, 1993) and the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; Feb. 26, 1979), the Department prepares a semiannual regulatory and deregulatory agenda. It summarizes all current and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. These are matters on which action has begun or is projected during the next 12 months or for which action has been completed since the last Agenda.
In addition, this Agenda was prepared in accordance with three Executive Orders issued by President Trump, which directed agencies to further scrutinize their regulations and other agency actions. On January 30, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. Under section 2(a) of the Executive order, unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it must identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. On February 24, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda. Under this Executive order, each agency must establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF) to evaluate existing regulations, and make recommendations for their repeal, replacement, or modification. On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, requiring agencies to review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and other similar agency actions that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources.
In response to the mandate in Executive Order 13777, the Department formed an RRTF consisting of senior career and non-career leaders, which has already conducted extensive reviews of existing regulations, and identified a number of rules to be repealed, replaced, or modified. As a result of the RRTF's work, since January 2017, the Department has issued deregulatory actions that reduce regulatory costs on the public by at least $882 million (in net present value cost savings). Even when the costs of significant regulatory actions are factored in, the Department's deregulatory actions in FY 2018 will still result in over $500 million in net cost savings (in net present value). With the RRTF's assistance, the Department has achieved these cost savings in a manner that is fully consistent with enhancing safety. For example, in March 2018, the FAA promulgated a rule titled Rotorcraft Pilot Compartment View, which will reduce the number of tests for nighttime operations, after the Agency carefully considered the safety data and determined the tests were unnecessary.
The Department has also significantly increased the number of deregulatory actions it is pursuing. Today, DOT is pursuing over 120 deregulatory rulemakings, up from just 16 in the fall of 2016.
While each regulatory and deregulatory action is evaluated on its own merits, the RRTF augments the Department's consideration of prospective rulemakings by conducting monthly reviews across all OAs to identify appropriate deregulatory
The Department's ongoing regulatory effort is guided by four fundamental principles—safety, innovation, enabling investment in infrastructure, and reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens. These priorities are grounded in our national interest in maintaining U.S. global leadership in safety, innovation, and economic growth. To accomplish our regulatory goals, we must create a regulatory environment that fosters growth in new and innovative industries without burdening them with unnecessary restrictions. At the same time, safety remains our highest priority; we must remain focused on managing safety risks and being sure that we do not regress from the successes already achieved. Our planned regulatory actions reflect a careful balance that emphasizes the Department's priority in fostering innovation while at the same time meeting the challenges of maintaining a safe, reliable, and sustainable transportation system.
For example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is working on reducing regulatory barriers to technology innovation, including the integration of automated vehicles. Automated vehicles are expected to increase safety significantly by reducing the likelihood of human error when driving, which today accounts for the overwhelming majority of accidents on our nation's roadways. NHTSA plans to issue regulatory actions that: (1) Design a pilot program for vehicles that may not meet FMVSS; (2) allow for permanent updates to current FMVSS reflecting new technology; and (3) allow for updates to NHTSA's regulations outlining the administrative processes for petitioning the agency for exemptions, rulemakings, and reconsiderations. Similarly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is working to enable, safely and efficiently, the integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System. UAS are expected to continue to drive innovation and increase safety as operators and manufacturers find new and inventive uses for UAS. For instance, UAS are poised to assist human operators with a number of different mission sets such as inspection of critical infrastructure and search and rescue, enabling beneficial and lifesaving activities that would otherwise be difficult or even impossible for a human to accomplish unassisted. The Department has regulatory efforts underway to further integrate UAS safely and efficiently.
The Department is working on several rulemakings to facilitate a major transformation of our national space program from one in which the federal government has a primary role to one in which private industry drives growth in innovation and launches. The Department is also currently working on a rulemaking to facilitate a major transformation of our national space program that will enable private industry to drive growth in innovation and launches. The FAA is proposing a rule that will fundamentally change how FAA licenses launches and reentries of commercial space vehicles moving from prescriptive requirements to a performance based approach.
An Office of Management and Budget memorandum, dated June 18, 2018, establishes the format for this Agenda.
First, the Agenda is divided by initiating offices. Then the Agenda is divided into five categories: (1) Prerule stage; (2) proposed rule stage; (3) final rule stage; (4) long-term actions; and (5) completed actions. For each entry, the Agenda provides the following information: (1) Its “significance”; (2) a short, descriptive title; (3) its legal basis; (4) the related regulatory citation in the Code of Federal Regulations; (5) any legal deadline and, if so, for what action (
For nonsignificant regulations issued routinely and frequently as a part of an established body of technical requirements (such as the Federal Aviation Administration's Airspace Rules), to keep those requirements operationally current, we only include the general category of the regulations, the identity of a contact office or official, and an indication of the expected number of regulations; we do not list individual regulations.
In the “Timetable” column, we use abbreviations to indicate the particular documents being considered. ANPRM stands for Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, SNPRM for Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and NPRM for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Listing a future date in this column does not mean we have made a decision to issue a document; it is the earliest date on which a rulemaking document may publish. In addition, these dates are based on current schedules. Information received after the issuance of this Agenda could result in a decision not to take regulatory action or in changes to proposed publication dates. For example, the need for further evaluation could result in a later publication date; evidence of a greater need for the regulation could result in an earlier publication date.
Finally, a dot (•) preceding an entry indicates that the entry appears in the Agenda for the first time.
The internet is the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
1. The agency's Agenda preamble;
2. Rules that are in the agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
3. Any rules that the agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's
Our Agenda is intended primarily for the use of the public. Since its inception, we have made modifications and refinements that we believe provide the public with more helpful information, as well as making the Agenda easier to use. We would like you, the public, to make suggestions or comments on how the Agenda could be further improved.
We also seek your suggestions on which of our existing regulations you believe need to be reviewed to determine whether they should be revised or revoked. We particularly draw your attention to the Department's review plan in appendix D.
The Department is especially interested in obtaining information on requirements that have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” and, therefore, must be reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. If you have any suggested regulations, please submit them to us, along with your explanation of why they should be reviewed.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, comments are specifically invited on regulations that we have targeted for review under section 610 of the Act. The phrase (sec. 610 Review) appears at the end of the title for these reviews. Please see appendix D for the Department's section 610 review plans.
Executive Orders 13132 and 13175 require us to develop an account process to ensure “meaningful and timely input” by State, local, and tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism or tribal implications. These policies are defined in the Executive orders to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects” on States or Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and them, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and various levels of Government or Indian tribes. Therefore, we encourage State and local Governments or Indian tribes to provide us with information about how the Department's rulemakings impact them.
The Department is publishing this regulatory Agenda in the
To obtain a copy of a specific regulatory document in the Agenda, you should communicate directly with the contact person listed with the regulation at the address below. We note that most, if not all, such documents, including the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, are available through the internet at
The following is a list of persons who can be contacted within the Department for general information concerning the rulemaking process within the various operating administrations.
FAA—Lirio Liu, Director, Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-7833.
FHWA—Jennifer Outhouse, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-0761.
FMCSA—Steven J. LaFreniere, Regulatory Ombudsman, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-0596.
NHTSA—Steve Wood, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2992.
FRA—Kathryn Gresham, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 493-6063.
FTA—Chaya Koffman, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-3101.
SLSDC—Carrie Mann Lavigne, Chief Counsel, 180 Andrews Street, Massena, NY 13662; telephone (315) 764-3200.
PHMSA—Stephen Gordon, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-1101.
MARAD—Gabriel Chavez, Office of Chief Counsel, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2621.
OST—Jonathan Moss, Assistant General Counsel for Regulation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-4723.
All comments via the internet are submitted through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at the following address:
The public also may review regulatory dockets at or deliver comments on proposed rulemakings to the Dockets Office at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, 1-800-647-5527. Working Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The Department of Transportation has long recognized the importance of regularly reviewing its existing regulations to determine whether they need to be revised or revoked. Our Regulatory Policies and Procedures require such reviews. We also have responsibilities under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 FR 3821 (January 18, 2011), Executive Order 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Agenda,” and
Section 610 requires that we conduct reviews of rules that: (1) Have been published within the last 10 years; and (2) have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” (SEISNOSE). It also requires that we publish in the
Some reviews may be conducted earlier than scheduled. For example, to the extent resources permit, the plain language reviews will be conducted more quickly. Other events, such as accidents, may result in the need to conduct earlier reviews of some rules. Other factors may also result in the need to make changes; for example, we may make changes in response to public comment on this plan or in response to a presidentially mandated review. If there is any change to the review plan, we will note the change in the following Agenda. For any section 610 review, we will provide the required notice prior to the review.
Generally, the agencies have divided their rules into 10 different groups and plan to analyze one group each year. For purposes of these reviews, a year will coincide with the fall-to-fall schedule for publication of the Agenda. Most agencies provide historical information about the reviews that have occurred over the past 10 years. Thus, Year 1 (2018) begins in the fall of 2018 and ends in the fall of 2019; Year 2 (2019) begins in the fall of 2019 and ends in the fall of 2020, and so on. The exception to this general rule is the FAA, which provides information about the reviews it completed for this year and prospective information about the reviews it intends to complete in the next 10 years. Thus, for FAA Year 1 (2017) begins in the fall of 2017 and ends in the fall of 2018; Year 2 (2018) begins in the fall of 2018 and ends in the fall of 2019, and so on. We request public comment on the timing of the reviews. For example, is there a reason for scheduling an analysis and review for a particular rule earlier than we have? Any comments concerning the plan or analyses should be submitted to the regulatory contacts listed in appendix B, General Rulemaking Contact Persons.
The agency will analyze each of the rules in a given year's group to determine whether any rule has a SEISNOSE and, thus, requires review in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The level of analysis will, of course, depend on the nature of the rule and its applicability. Publication of agencies' section 610 analyses listed each fall in this Agenda provides the public with notice and an opportunity to comment consistent with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We request that public comments be submitted to us early in the analysis year concerning the small entity impact of the rules to help us in making our determinations.
In each fall Agenda, the agency will publish the results of the analyses it has completed during the previous year. For rules that had a negative finding on SEISNOSE, we will give a short explanation (
The agency will also examine the specified rules to determine whether any other reasons exist for revising or revoking the rule or for rewriting the rule in plain language. In each fall Agenda, the agency will also publish information on the results of the examinations completed during the previous year.
The Agenda identifies the pending DOT section 610 Reviews by inserting “(Section 610 Review)” after the title for the specific entry. For further information on the pending reviews, see the Agenda entries at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has elected to use the two-step, two-year process used by most Department of Transportation (DOT) modes in past plans. As such, the FAA has divided its rules into 10 groups as displayed in the table below. During the first year (the “
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 as amended (RFA), (sections 601 through 612 of title 5, United States Code (5 U.S.C.)) requires Federal regulatory agencies to analyze all proposed and final rules to determine their economic impact on small entities, which includes small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. The primary purpose of the RFA is to establish as a principle of regulatory issuance that Federal agencies endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of entities subject to the regulation. The FAA performed the required RFA analyses of each final rulemaking action and amendment it has initiated since enactment of the RFA in 1980.
Section 610 of 5 U.S.C. requires government agencies to periodically review all regulations that will have a SEISNOSE. The FAA must analyze each rule within 10 years of its publication date.
The RFA does not define “significant economic impact.” Therefore, there is no clear rule or number to determine when a significant economic impact occurs. However, the Small Business Administration (SBA) states that significance should be determined by considering the size of the business, the size of the competitor's business, and the impact the same regulation has on larger competitors.
Likewise, the RFA does not define “substantial number.” However, the legislative history of the RFA suggests that a substantial number must be at least one but does not need to be an overwhelming percentage such as more than half. The SBA states that the substantiality of the number of small businesses affected should be determined on an industry-specific basis.
This analysis consisted of the following three steps:
1. Review of the number of small entities affected by the amendments to parts 119 through 129 and parts 150 through 156.
2. Identification and analysis of all amendments to parts 119 through 129 and parts 150 through 156 since 2008 to determine whether any still have or now have a SEISNOSE.
3. Review of the FAA's regulatory flexibility assessment of each amendment performed as required by the RFA.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has adopted regulations in title 23 of the CFR, chapter I, related to the Federal-Aid Highway Program. These regulations implement and carry out the provisions of Federal law relating to the administration of Federal aid for highways. The primary law authorizing Federal aid for highways is chapter I of title 23 of the U.S.C. 145, which expressly provides for a federally assisted State program. For this reason, the regulations adopted by the FHWA in title 23 of the CFR primarily relate to the requirements that States must meet to receive Federal funds for construction and other work related to highways. Because the regulations in title 23 primarily relate to States, which are not defined as small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the FHWA believes that its regulations in title 23 do not have a significant economic
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended (sections 601 through 612 of title 5, United States Code), requires Federal regulatory agencies to analyze all proposed and final rules to determine their economic impact on small entities, which include small businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions. Section 610 requires government agencies to periodically review all regulations that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SEISNOSE).
In complying with this section, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has elected to use the two-step, two-year process used by most Department of Transportation (DOT) modes. As such, FTA has divided its rules into 10 groups as displayed in the table below. During the analysis year, the listed rules will be analyzed to identify those with a SEISNOSE. During the review year, each rule identified in the analysis year as having a SEISNOSE will be reviewed in accordance with Section 610(b) to determine if it should be continued without change or changed to minimize the impact on small entities.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For example, the 2137-AF32 rulemaking action is part of PHMSA's ongoing biennial process to harmonize the HMR with international regulations and standards. Federal law and policy strongly favor the harmonization of domestic and international standards for hazardous materials transportation. The Federal hazardous materials transportation law (Federal hazmat law; 49 U.S.C. 5101
Harmonization facilitates international trade by minimizing the costs and other burdens of complying with multiple or inconsistent safety requirements for transportation of hazardous materials. Safety is enhanced by creating a uniform framework for compliance, and as the volume of hazardous materials transported in international commerce continues to grow, harmonization becomes increasingly important.
The impact that the 2137-AF32 rulemaking will have on small entities is not expected to be significant. The rulemaking will clarify provisions based on PHMSA's initiatives and correspondence with the regulated community and domestic and international stakeholders. The changes are generally intended to provide relief and, as a result, positive economic benefits to shippers, carriers, and packaging manufacturers and testers, including small entities.
•
Department of the Treasury.
Semiannual regulatory agenda and annual regulatory plan.
This notice is given pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), which require the publication by the Department of a semiannual agenda of regulations. E.O. 12866 also requires the publication by the Department of a regulatory plan for the upcoming fiscal year. The purpose of the agenda is to provide advance information about pending regulatory activities and encourage public participation in the regulatory process.
The Agency contact identified in the item relating to that regulation.
The semiannual regulatory agenda includes regulations that the Department has issued or expects to issue and rules currently in effect that are under departmental or bureau review. For this edition of the regulatory agenda, the most important significant regulatory actions and a Statement of Regulatory Priorities are included in the Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the internet has been the primary medium for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
(1) Rules that are in the regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that have been identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, the entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
The Department has listed in this agenda all regulations and regulatory reviews pending at the time of publication, except for technical, minor, and routine actions. On occasion, a regulatory matter may be inadvertently left off of the agenda or an emergency may arise that requires the Department to initiate a regulatory action not yet on the agenda. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this agenda. For most entries, Treasury includes a projected date for the next rulemaking action; however, the date is an estimate and is not a commitment to publish on the projected date. In addition, some agenda entries are marked as “withdrawn” when there has been no publication activity. Withdrawal of a rule from the agenda does not necessarily mean that a rule will not be included in a future agenda but may mean that further consideration is warranted and that the regulatory action is unlikely in the next 12 months.
Public participation in the rulemaking process is the foundation of effective regulations. For this reason, the Department invites comments on all regulatory and de-regulatory items included in the agenda and invites input on items that should be included in the semiannual agenda.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board submits the following agenda of proposed regulatory activities which may be conducted by the agency during the next 12 months. This regulatory agenda may be revised by the agency during the coming months as a result of action taken by the Board.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111.
For information concerning Board regulations and proposed actions, contact Gretchen Jacobs, General Counsel (202) 272-0040 (voice) or (202) 272-0062 (TTY).
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
This document sets forth the regulatory agenda of the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. This agenda is issued in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The agenda lists regulations that are currently under development or review or that the Committee expects to have under development or review during the next 12 months. The purpose for publishing this agenda is to advise the public of the Committee's current and future regulatory actions.
For further information on the agenda in general, contact Shelly Hammond, Director, Contracting and Policy, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, VA 22202; (703) 603-2127.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), each agency is required to prepare an agenda of all regulations under development or review. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) has a similar agenda requirement (5 U.S.C. 602). Under the law, the agenda must list any regulation that is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Office of Management and Budget has issued guidelines prescribing the form and content of the regulatory agenda. Under those guidelines, the agenda must list all regulatory activities being conducted or reviewed in the next 12 months and provide certain specified information on each regulation. All of the items on this agenda are current or projected rulemakings.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the Semiannual Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions online at
If you have questions or comments about a particular action, please get in touch with the Agency contact listed in each agenda entry. If you have general questions about the Semiannual Agenda, please contact: Caryn Muellerleile (
EPA is committed to a regulatory strategy that effectively achieves the Agency's mission of protecting the environment and the health, welfare, and safety of Americans while also supporting economic growth, job creation, competitiveness, and innovation. EPA publishes the Semiannual Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions to update the public about regulatory activity undertaken in support of this mission. In the Semiannual Agenda, EPA provides notice of our plans to review, propose, and issue regulations.
Additionally, EPA's Semiannual Agenda includes information about rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and review of those regulations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
In this document, EPA explains in greater detail the types of actions and information available in the Semiannual Agenda and actions that are currently undergoing review specifically for impacts on small entities.
“E-Agenda,” “online regulatory agenda,” and “semiannual regulatory agenda” all refer to the same comprehensive collection of information that, until 2007, was published in the
“Regulatory Flexibility Agenda” refers to a document that contains information about regulations that may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We continue to publish this document in the
“Unified Regulatory Agenda” refers to the collection of all agencies' agendas with an introduction prepared by the Regulatory Information Service Center facilitated by the General Service Administration.
“Regulatory Agenda Preamble” refers to the document you are reading now. It appears as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and introduces both EPA's Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and the e-Agenda.
“610 Review” as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act means a periodic review within ten years of promulgating a final rule that has or may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA maintains a list of these actions at
A number of environmental laws authorize EPA's actions, including but not limited to:
• Clean Air Act (CAA),
• Clean Water Act (CWA),
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund),
• Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA),
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Not only must EPA comply with environmental laws, but also administrative legal requirements that apply to the issuance of regulations, such as: The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), and the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
EPA also meets a number of requirements contained in numerous Executive Orders: 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, Feb. 3, 2017); 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011); 12898, “Environmental Justice” (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994); 13045, “Children's Health Protection” (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997); 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999); 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000); and 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
You can make your voice heard by getting in touch with the contact person provided in each agenda entry. EPA encourages you to participate as early in the process as possible. You may also participate by commenting on proposed rules published in the
Instructions on how to submit your comments through
EPA believes its actions will be more cost effective and protective if the development process includes stakeholders working with us to help identify the most practical and effective solutions to environmental problems. EPA encourages you to become involved in its rule and policymaking process. For more information about EPA's efforts to increase transparency, participation and collaboration in EPA activities, please visit
EPA includes regulations in the e-Agenda. However, there is no legal significance to the omission of an item from the agenda, and EPA generally does not include the following categories of actions:
• Administrative actions such as delegations of authority, changes of address, or phone numbers;
• Under the CAA: Revisions to state implementation plans, equivalent methods for ambient air quality monitoring, deletions from the new source performance standards source categories list, delegations of authority to states, and area designations for air quality planning purposes;
• Under FIFRA: Registration-related decisions, actions affecting the status of currently registered pesticides, and data call-ins;
• Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Actions regarding pesticide tolerances and food additive regulations;
• Under RCRA: Authorization of State solid waste management plans, and hazardous waste delisting petitions;
• Under the CWA: State Water Quality Standards, deletions from the section 307(a) list of toxic pollutants, suspensions of toxic testing requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and delegations of NPDES authority to States;
• Under SDWA: Actions on State underground injection control programs.
Meanwhile, the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda includes:
• Actions likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
• Rules the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the RFA.
EPA has no 610 reviews in this Agenda.
Online, you can choose how to sort the agenda entries by specifying the characteristics of the entries of interest in the desired individual data fields for both the
Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:
1. Prerule Stage—EPA's prerule actions generally are intended to determine whether the Agency should initiate rulemaking. Prerulemakings may include anything that influences or leads to rulemaking; this would include Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs), studies or analyses of the possible need for regulatory action.
2. Proposed Rule Stage—Proposed rulemaking actions include EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemakings (NPRMs); these proposals are scheduled to publish in the
3. Final Rule Stage—Final rulemaking actions are those actions that EPA is scheduled to finalize and publish in the
4. Long-Term Actions—This section includes rulemakings for which the next scheduled regulatory action (such as publication of a NPRM or final rule) is twelve or more months into the future. We urge you to explore becoming involved even if an action is listed in the Long-Term category.
5. Completed Actions—EPA's completed actions are those that have been promulgated and published in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Agenda entries include only the nine categories of information that are required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and by
E-Agenda entries include:
a. Economically Significant: Under Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking that may have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
b. Other Significant: A rulemaking that is not economically significant but is considered significant for other reasons. This category includes rules that may:
1. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
2. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients; or
3. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles in Executive Order 12866.
c. Substantive, Nonsignificant: A rulemaking that has substantive impacts but is not Significant, Routine and Frequent, or Informational/Administrative/Other.
d. Routine and Frequent: A rulemaking that is a specific case of a recurring application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations (
e. Informational/Administrative/Other: An action that is primarily informational or pertains to an action outside the scope of Executive Order 12866.
a. Deregulatory: When finalized, an action is expected to have total costs less than zero.
b. Regulatory: The action is either:
(i) A significant regulatory action as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, or
(ii) a significant guidance document (
c. Fully or Partially Exempt: the action has been granted, or is expected to be granted, a full or partial waiver under one or more of the following circumstances:
(i) It is expressly exempt by Executive Order 13771 (issued with respect to a “military, national security, or foreign affairs function of the United States”; or related to “agency organization, management, or personnel”),
(ii) it addresses an emergency such as critical health, safety, financial, or non-exempt national security matters (offset requirements may be exempted or delayed),
(iii) it is required to meet a statutory or judicial deadline (offset requirements may be exempted or delayed), or
(iv) it is expected to generate de minimis costs.
d. Not subject to, not significant: Is a NPRM or final rule AND is neither an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action nor an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.
e. Other: At the time of designation, either the available information is too preliminary to determine Executive Order 13771 status or other reasonable circumstances preclude a preliminary Executive Order 13771 designation.
f. Independent agency: Is an action an independent agency anticipates issuing and thus is not subject to Executive Order 13771.
The
Some actions listed in the Agenda include a URL for an EPA-maintained website that provides additional information about the action.
EPA maintains a list of its deregulatory actions under development, as well as those that are completed, at
When EPA publishes either an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) or a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Section 610 of the RFA requires that an agency review, within 10 years of promulgation, each rule that has or will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. At this time, EPA has no 610 reviews.
For each of EPA's rulemakings, consideration is given to whether there will be any adverse impact on any small entity. EPA attempts to fit the regulatory requirements, to the extent feasible, to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to the regulation.
Under the RFA as amended by SBREFA, the Agency must prepare a formal analysis of the potential negative impacts on small entities, convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (proposed rule stage), and prepare a Small Entity Compliance Guide (final rule stage) unless the Agency certifies a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For more detailed information about the Agency's policy and practice with respect to implementing the RFA/SBREFA, please visit EPA's RFA/SBREFA website at
Finally, we would like to thank those of you who choose to join with us in making progress on the complex issues involved in protecting human health and the environment. Collaborative efforts such as EPA's open rulemaking process are a valuable tool for addressing the problems we face, and the regulatory agenda is an important part of that process.
Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 7404T, Washington, DC 20460,
Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 7404T, Washington, DC 20460,
Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 7404T, Washington, DC 20460,
General Services Administration (GSA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda announces the proposed regulatory actions that GSA plans for the next 12 months and those that were completed since the spring 2018 edition. This agenda was developed under the guidelines of Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as amended, Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” GSA's purpose in publishing this agenda is to allow interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. GSA also invites interested persons to recommend existing significant regulations for review to determine whether they should be modified or eliminated. Published proposed and final rules may be reviewed in their entirety at the Government's rulemaking website at
The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, the entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
Lois Mandell, Division Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, 1800 F Street NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405-0001, 202-501-2735.
Dated: July 27, 2018.
The changes fall into five categories: (1) Incorporating existing Agency policy previously issued through other means, (2) reorganizing to better align with the FAR, (3) incorporating Agency unique clauses, (4) incorporating supplemental material, and (5) editing for clarity.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
NASA's regulatory agenda describes those regulations being considered for development or amendment by NASA, the need and legal basis for the actions being considered, the name and telephone number of the knowledgeable official, whether a regulatory analysis is required, and the status of regulations previously reported.
The regulatory plan is a statement of the Agency's priorities that describe legislative and programmatic activities, highlight rulemaking that streamline's regulations and report requirements, identify regulations that are of particular concern to small businesses, include preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits of each rule, and provide specific citation of actions required by statue or court order.
Deputy Associate Administrator, Office Mission Support Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546.
Cheryl E. Parker, (202) 358-0252.
OMB guidelines dated June 18, 2018, “Fall 2017 Data Call for the Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,” require a regulatory agenda of those regulations under development and review to be published in the
1. Remove the Certifications, Assurances, and Representations Appendix A from 2 CFR 1800.
2. Remove the Terms and Conditions Appendix B from 2 CFR 1800.
3. Change section 1800.208 and take out “the certification and representations for NASA may be found at Appendix A of this part.”
4. Change section 1800.210 and take out “the terms and conditions for NASA may be found at Appendix A of this part.”
Railroad Retirement Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda contains a list of regulations that the Board is developing or proposes to develop in the next 12 months and regulations that are scheduled to be reviewed in that period.
844 North Rush Street, Chicago, IL 60611-1275.
Marguerite P. Dadabo, Assistant General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Railroad Retirement Board, (312) 751-4945, Fax (312) 751-7102, TDD (312) 751-4701.
Regulations that are routine in nature or which pertain solely to internal Agency management have not been included in the agenda.
Dated: July 27, 2018.
By Authority of the Board.
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This semiannual Regulatory Agenda (Agenda) is a summary of current and projected regulatory and deregulatory actions and completed actions of the Small Business Administration (SBA). This summary information is intended to enable the public to be more aware of, and effectively participate in, SBA's regulatory and deregulatory activities. Accordingly, SBA invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this Agenda.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires SBA to publish in the
SBA is fully committed to implementing the Administration's regulatory reform policies, as established by Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (January 30, 2017) and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda (February 24, 2017). In order to fully implement the goal of these executive orders, SBA seeks feedback from the public in identifying any SBA regulations affected parties believe impose unnecessary burdens or costs that exceed their benefits; eliminate jobs or inhibit job creation; or are ineffective or outdated.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda provides summary descriptions of regulations being developed by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council pursuant to Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (1993), with particular adherence to Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Costs,” 82 FR 9339 (2017); Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” 82 FR 12285, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 to 612. The purpose of publishing this agenda is to give notice of regulatory activity being undertaken by the FAR Council in order to provide the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.
Lois Mandell, Division Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, 1800 F Street NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405-0001, 202-501-2735.
DoD, GSA, and NASA, under the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Act (41 U.S.C. 1303) and the Agencies' several statutory authorities, jointly issue and maintain the FAR through periodic issuance of changes published in the
The electronic version of the FAR, including changes, can be accessed on the FAR website at
The information provided in the Unified Agenda (Agenda) previews the rulemaking activities that we expect to undertake in the immediate future. The Agenda focuses primarily on those actions expected to result in publication of Advanced Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, or Final Rules within the next 12 months.
A fully searchable e-Agenda is available for viewing in its entirety at
This rule establishes a practice that will ensure that prices are fair and reasonable at the time the order is placed under the GSA's FSS. This Government-wide FAR rule will ensure uniform implementation of this FAR change across FAR-based contracts and avoid the proliferation of agency-wide rules and actions (
In its final rule, SBA has clarified that, as a general matter, its small business contracting regulations apply regardless of the place of performance. In light of these changes, there is a need to amend the FAR both to bring its coverage into alignment with SBA's regulation and to give agencies the tools they need, especially the ability to use set-asides to maximize opportunities for small businesses overseas.
SBA has included contracts performed outside of the United States in agencies' prime contracting goals since FY 2016. Although inclusion for goaling purposes is not dependent on FAR changes, amending FAR part 19 will allow agencies to take advantage of the tools authorized for providing small business opportunities for contracts awarded outside of the United States.
This will make it easier for small businesses to receive additional opportunities for contracts performed outside of the United States.
Paragraph (b) requires the FAR Council to review the FAR to assess every regulation that requires a specific clause in contracts for commercial products or commercial services, unless the regulation is required by law or Executive Order. Paragraph (b) also requires that revisions to the FAR be proposed to eliminate those regulations unless the FAR Council makes a determination not to eliminate a regulation.
Paragraph (c) requires the FAR Council to review the FAR to assess every regulation that requires a prime contractor to include specific clause in subcontracts for commercially available off-the-shelf items, unless the clause is required by law or Executive Order. Paragraph (c) also requires that revisions to the FAR be proposed to eliminate those regulations unless the FAR Council makes a determination not to eliminate a regulation.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) require these revisions to be proposed within one year of the date of the enactment of section 839.
Due to their inherent flexibility, competitive nature, and administrative efficiency, multiple award contracts are commonly used in Federal procurement. They have proven to be an effective means of contracting for large quantities of supplies and services for which the quantity and delivery requirements cannot be definitively determined at contract award. However, prior to 2011, the FAR was largely silent on the use of acquisition strategies to promote small business participation in conjunction with multiple-award contracts. This rule increases small business participation in Federal prime contracts by ensuring that small businesses have greater access to multiple award contracts, clarifying the procedures for partially setting aside and reserving multiple-award contracts for small business; and setting aside orders placed under multiple-award contracts for small business. This rule ensures that small businesses will have greater access to these commonly used vehicles.
This rule provides for a uniform Federal Government policy to prohibit Federal contractors from discriminating against their employees and job applicants who inquire about, discuss, or disclose their own compensation or the compensation of other employees or applicants.
This rule implements the Department of Labor (DOL) interim final rule published in the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission), in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, is publishing a semiannual agenda of rulemakings that the Commission expects to propose or promulgate over the next year. The Commission welcomes comments from small entities and others on the agenda.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, (202) 418-5964,
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601,
(1) A brief description of the subject area of any rule that the agency expects to propose or promulgate, which is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(2) A summary of the nature of any such rule under consideration for each subject area listed in the agenda, the objectives and legal basis for the issuance of the rule, and an approximate schedule for completing action on any rule for which the agency has issued a general notice of proposed rulemaking; and
(3) The name and telephone number of an agency official knowledgeable about the items listed in the agenda.
Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an agenda of rulemakings that it presently expects may be considered during the course of the next year. Subject to a determination for each rule, it is possible as a general matter that some of these rules may have some impact on small entities.
The Commission's Fall 2018 regulatory flexibility agenda is included in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 26, 2018, by the Commission.
David E. Aron,
Owen Kopon,
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is publishing this agenda as part of the Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The Bureau reasonably anticipates having the regulatory matters identified below under consideration during the period from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019. The next agenda will be published in spring 2019 and will update this agenda through spring 2020. Publication of this agenda is in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This information is current as of August 30, 2018.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.
A staff contact is included for each regulatory item listed herein. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact
The Bureau is publishing its Fall 2018 Agenda as part of the Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agenda lists the regulatory matters that the Bureau reasonably anticipates having under consideration during the period from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019, as described further below.
Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (Dodd-Frank Act), the Bureau has rulemaking, supervisory, enforcement, and other authorities relating to consumer financial products and services. These authorities include the authority to issue regulations under more than a dozen Federal consumer financial laws, which transferred to the Bureau from seven Federal agencies on July 21, 2011. The Bureau's general purpose, as specified in section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act, is to implement and enforce Federal consumer financial law consistently for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services and that markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent, and competitive.
The Bureau is working on various initiatives to address issues in markets for consumer financial products and services that are not reflected in this notice because the Unified Agenda is limited to rulemaking activities. Section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act specifies the objectives of the Bureau, including ensuring that, with respect to consumer financial products and services, consumers are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions; consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination; outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens; that Federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently, without regard to the status of a person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair competition; and markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.
The Bureau is under interim leadership pending the confirmation of a permanent director. The Bureau is also in the process of implementing various provisions in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA), Public Law 115-174, 132 Stat. 1297, which was signed into law in May 2018, and of conducting its first assessments of the effectiveness of prior “significant” Bureau rulemakings as required by section 1022(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act. In addition, the Bureau is analyzing more than 86,000 comments received in response to its “Call for Evidence” initiative seeking feedback on Bureau operations and regulations. The comment period for the last of that initiative's twelve Requests for Information closed in July 2018.
This Agenda largely focuses on the continuation of projects from the Spring 2018 Agenda and the addition of rulemakings to implement EGRRCPA requirements. The Bureau is carefully considering the feedback received through the Call for Evidence, prior Requests for Information released in conjunction with the section 1022(d) assessments, and other sources in setting its future priorities. Following this consideration, the Bureau expects to refine its priorities no later than the Spring 2019 Agenda and will publish a statement of priorities at that time.
Much of the Bureau's rulemaking work is focusing on implementing directives mandated in the EGRRCPA, the Dodd-Frank Act, and other statutes. As part of these rulemakings, the Bureau is working to achieve the consumer protection objectives of the statutes while minimizing regulatory burden on financial services providers, including facilitating industry compliance with rules.
For example, the Bureau issued two rules to facilitate the implementation of the EGRRCPA. The first was an interim final rule that adjusts certain model forms under the Fair Credit Reporting Act in light of EGRRCPA amendments to strengthen consumers' ability to protect themselves from identity theft. To reduce compliance costs and disruption in light of the September 21, 2018 effective date of this amendment, the rule provides various options for amending the affected disclosures to inform consumers that the EGRRCPA created a right to obtain a free “security freeze” from nationwide consumer reporting agencies and extended the length of “fraud alerts” that consumers may place on their files with nationwide consumer reporting agencies from 90 days to one year. The interim final rule takes effect on September 21, 2018, but the Bureau is seeking comment on the changes and underlying disclosures.
The second issuance in August 2018 was an interpretive and procedural rule that provides clarification regarding EGRRCPA amendments to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), which requires financial institutions to report certain mortgage information to federal financial regulators and the public. The scope of HMDA reporting was expanded by the Dodd-Frank Act and by the Bureau via rule in 2015. The EGRRCPA creates a partial exemption to allow certain insured depository institutions and insured credit unions not to report certain data points for certain transactions. The August 2018 interpretive and procedural rule provides clarification as to which loans and lines of credit count toward the EGRRCPA exemption thresholds and which data points are covered by the partial exemptions. As indicated in the
The Bureau has also added three additional EGRRCPA projects to the agenda, in addition to engaging in a range of other non-rulemaking activities to reflect the statute's passage and to provide guidance to industry on implementation issues. The first two projects reflect directives in sections 108 and 307 of EGRRCPA that require the Bureau to engage in rulemakings to (1) exempt certain creditors with assets of $10 billion or less from certain mortgage escrow requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act; and (2) develop standards for assessing consumers' ability to repay “Property Assessed Clean Energy” financing (PACE), which results in a tax assessment on a consumer's home and covers the costs of home improvements, often to increase energy efficiency. The third project contemplates that notice-and-comment rulemaking may be helpful to implement or clarify other provisions of EGRRCPA that do not require Bureau rulemaking to take effect,
The Bureau has also added a new rulemaking to its agenda to facilitate further implementation of a statutory directive in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act amendments to HMDA that the Bureau modify or require modification of the public HMDA data for the purpose of protecting consumer privacy interests. In the 2015 final rule to implement the Dodd-Frank Act amendments, the Bureau adopted a balancing test to determine whether and how HMDA data should be modified prior to its disclosure to the public in order to protect applicant and borrower privacy while also fulfilling HMDA's public disclosure purpose. The Bureau sought comment in 2017 on its proposed application of the balancing test to the 2018 data to be collected and reported by lenders, and expects to issue final guidance in the next few months to govern the disclosure of the 2018 data. After consideration of stakeholder comments urging that determinations concerning the disclosure of loan-level HMDA data be effectuated through more formal processes, the Bureau has decided to add the new notice-and-comment rulemaking to govern the disclosure of HMDA data in future years.
In light of the need to focus additional resources on various HMDA initiatives discussed elsewhere in this agenda, the Bureau has adjusted its timeline for implementing an additional statutory directive contained in section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 1071 amended the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) to require financial institutions to collect, report, and make public certain information concerning credit applications made by women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses. The Bureau delayed implementation of this provision pending implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to HMDA, which creates a similar regime for mortgages, and then accelerated work on the project after the HMDA rules were issued in 2015. In light of current resource constraints and priority accorded to HMDA implementation, the Bureau has now reclassified the section 1071 project from pre-rule status to longer-term action status. The Bureau intends to continue certain market monitoring and research activities to facilitate resumption of the rulemaking.
The Bureau is continuing certain other rulemakings described in its Spring 2018 Agenda to ensure that markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently and to address potential unwarranted regulatory burdens.
For example, the Bureau announced in January 2018 that it intends to engage in a rulemaking to reconsider a 2017 rule titled Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans. The rule has a compliance date in August 2019. The Bureau expects to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by no later than early 2019 that will address reconsideration of the rule on the merits as well as address changes to its compliance date.
In addition, prior to the enactment of the EGRRCPA, the Bureau had already taken action in August 2017 to temporarily increase the threshold for collecting and reporting HMDA data with respect to open-end lines of credit so that the Bureau could assess whether to make a permanent adjustment to that threshold. In December 2017, the Bureau announced that it intended to open a rulemaking to reconsider its 2015 HMDA rule more generally, for instance by potentially revisiting such issues as the institutional and transactional coverage tests and the rule's discretionary data points. In addition, as noted above, the Bureau anticipates engaging in notice-and-comment rulemaking to incorporate the EGRRCPA interpretative and procedural rule issued in August 2018 into Regulation C and to further implement the Act. The Bureau is considering these various HMDA projects in conjunction with each other and expects to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in spring 2019 to address some or all of the issues related to them.
Finally, the Bureau has continued to engage in research and pre-rulemaking activities regarding the debt collection market, which remains a top source of complaints to the Bureau. The Bureau has also received encouragement from industry and consumer groups to engage in rulemaking to address how to apply the 40-year old Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) to modern collection practices. The Bureau released an outline of proposals under consideration in July 2016 concerning practices by companies that are debt collectors under the FDCPA. This outline was released in advance of convening a panel in August 2016 under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget and the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy to consult with representatives of small businesses that might be affected by the rulemaking. The Bureau expects to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addressing such issues as communication practices and consumer disclosures by spring 2019.
As noted above, the Bureau has a number of workstreams underway that could affect planning and prioritization of rulemaking activity, as well as the way in which it conducts rulemakings and related processes. First, by January 2019, the Bureau will have completed three assessments prior “significant” Bureau rulemakings. These are the first assessments the Bureau has conducted to comply with section 1022(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act. These assessments focus on rules that the Bureau issued to implement Dodd-Frank Act requirements concerning international remittance transfers, the assessment of consumers' ability to repay mortgage loans, and mortgage servicing. The Bureau will consider the results of these assessments and stakeholder feedback on the rules in determining whether
In addition, as noted above, the Bureau issued twelve Requests for Information in 2018 seeking feedback on a wide variety of Bureau practices and procedures, as well as regulations that it had inherited from other agencies and issued under its own authority. The Bureau is assessing the suggestions for substantive rulemakings received in response to the RFIs along with suggestions from other sources, such as ideas gathered by an internal task force on burden reduction and projects that have previously been listed on the Bureau's agenda for potential rulemaking.
The Bureau is also considering future activity with regard to specific areas of consumer financial law of significant public interest. For example, the Bureau announced in May 2018 that it is reexamining the requirements of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act concerning the disparate impact doctrine in light of recent Supreme Court case law and the Congressional disapproval of a prior Bureau bulletin concerning indirect auto lender compliance with ECOA and its implementing regulations.
The Bureau is also considering refinements to the ways in which it conducts processes related to rulemakings, both in response to comments received in response to the Call for Evidence and other considerations. For example, the Bureau has decided to create an Office of Cost Benefit Analysis as part of an ongoing initiative to improve its analysis of the impacts of potential and adopted rules on consumers, financial services providers, and broader markets.
Finally, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau is continuing to monitor markets for consumer financial products and services to identify risks to consumers and the proper functioning of such markets. The Bureau expects by no later than the Spring 2019 Agenda to issue a more comprehensive statement of priorities to reflect this market monitoring and the Bureau's other activities discussed above.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In this document, the Commission publishes its semiannual regulatory flexibility agenda. In addition, this document includes an agenda of regulatory actions that the Commission expects to be under development or review by the Agency during the next year. This document meets the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866. The Commission welcomes comments on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
Comments should be received in the Office of the Secretary on or before December 17, 2018.
Comments on the regulatory flexibility agenda should be captioned “Regulatory Flexibility Agenda,” and emailed to:
For further information on the agenda, in general, contact Adrienne Layton, Directorate for Health Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville MD 20805, email:
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 to 612) contains several provisions intended to reduce unnecessary and disproportionate regulatory requirements on small businesses, small governmental organizations, and other small entities. Section 602 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 602) requires each agency to publish, twice each year, a regulatory flexibility agenda containing a brief description of the subject area of any rule expected to be proposed or promulgated, which is likely to have a “significant economic impact” on a “substantial number” of small entities.
The agency must also provide a summary of the nature of the rule and a schedule for acting on each rule for which the agency has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking.
The regulatory flexibility agenda also is required to contain the name and address of the agency official knowledgeable about the items listed. Furthermore, agencies are required to provide notice of their agendas to small entities and to solicit their comments by direct notification or by inclusion in publications likely to be obtained by such entities.
Additionally, Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to publish, twice each year, a regulatory agenda of regulations under development or review during the next year, and the Executive order states that such an agenda may be combined with the agenda published in accordance with the RFA. The regulatory flexibility agenda lists the regulatory activities expected to be under development or review during the next 12 months. It includes all such activities, whether or not they may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This agenda also includes regulatory activities that appeared in the spring 2018 agenda and have been completed by the Commission prior to publication of this agenda. Although CPSC, as an independent regulatory agency, is not required to comply with Executive Orders, the Commission does follow Executive Order 12866 regarding the publication of its regulatory agenda.
The agenda contains a brief description and summary of each regulatory activity, including the objectives and legal basis for each; an approximate schedule of target dates, subject to revision, for the development or completion of each activity; and the name and telephone number of a knowledgeable agency official concerning particular items on the agenda.
The internet is the basic means through which the Unified Agenda is disseminated. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at:
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that the agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet.
The agenda reflects an assessment of the likelihood that the specified event will occur during the next year; the precise dates for each rulemaking are uncertain. New information, changes of circumstances, or changes in law may alter anticipated timing. In addition, no final determination by staff or the Commission regarding the need for, or the substance of, any rule or regulation should be inferred from this agenda.
Currently, staff is working with voluntary standards organizations, both ASTM and NFPA, and BEARHFTI to evaluate new provisions and improve the existing consensus standards related to upholstered furniture flammability. Depending upon progress of the various standards, in FY 2019, staff plans to prepare a status report on recent activities.
Staff reviewed the comments received and on May 30, 2018, sent a draft final rule briefing package for high chairs to the Commission for consideration. The draft incorporated by reference ASTM
Federal Communications Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
Twice a year, in spring and fall, the Commission publishes in the
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Maura McGowan, Telecommunications Policy Specialist, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0990.
The Commission encourages public participation in its rulemaking process. To help keep the public informed of significant rulemaking proceedings, the Commission has prepared a list of important proceedings now in progress. The General Services Administration publishes the Unified Agenda in the
The following terms may be helpful in understanding the status of the proceedings included in this report:
Karen Schroeder, Attorney Advisor, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554,
Jerusha Burnett, Attorney Advisor, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554,
In the Report and Order, the Commission amended its rules to make additional spectrum available for new investment in mobile broadband networks while also ensuring that the United States maintains robust mobile satellite service capabilities. First, the Commission adds co-primary fixed and mobile allocations to the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) 2 GHz band, consistent with the International Table of Allocations, allowing more flexible use of the band, including for terrestrial broadband services, in the future. Second, to create greater predictability and regulatory parity with the bands licensed for terrestrial mobile broadband service, the Commission extends its existing secondary market spectrum manager spectrum leasing policies, procedures, and rules that
This Report and Order updates the Commission's radiofrequency (RF) equipment authorization program to build on the success realized by its use of Commission-recognized Telecommunications Certification Bodies (TCBs). The rules the Commission is adopting will facilitate the continued rapid introduction of new and innovative products to the market while ensuring that these products do not cause harmful interference to each other or to other communications devices and services.
In the Report and Order, the Commission takes several steps to accommodate the long-term needs of wireless microphone users. Wireless microphones play an important role in enabling broadcasters and other video programming networks to serve consumers, including as they cover breaking news and live sports events. They enhance event productions in a variety of settings including theaters and music venues, film studios, conventions, corporate events, houses of worship, and internet webcasts. They also help create high quality content that consumers demand and value. In particular, the Commission provide additional opportunities for wireless microphone operations in the TV bands following the upcoming incentive auction, and the Commission provide new opportunities for wireless microphone operations to access spectrum in other frequency bands where they can share use of the bands without harming existing users.
In the Order on Reconsideration, we address the four petitions for reconsideration of the Wireless Microphones R&O concerning licensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands, the 600 MHz duplex gap and several other frequency bands, as well as three petitions for reconsideration of the TV bands part 15 R&O concerning unlicensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands, the 600 MHz guard bands and duplex gap, and the 600 MHz service band. Because these petitions involve several overlapping technical and operational issues concerning wireless microphones, we consolidate our consideration of them in this one order.
In the Further Notice, we propose to permit certain professional theater, music, performing arts, or similar organizations that operate wireless microphones on an unlicensed basis and that meet certain criteria to obtain a part 74 license to operate in the TV bands (and the 600 MHz service band during the post-auction transition period), thereby allowing them to register in the white spaces databases for interference protection from unlicensed white space devices at venues where their events/productions are performed. In addition, we propose to permit these same users, based on demonstrated need, also to obtain a part 74 license to operate on other bands available for use by part 74 wireless microphone licensees provided that they meet the applicable requirements for operating in those bands.
Pursuant to a remand from the Third Circuit, the measures adopted in the 2009 Diversity Order were put forth for comment in the NPRM for the 2010 review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership rules. The Commission sought additional comment in 2014. The Commission addressed the remand in the 2016 Second Report and Order in the Broadcast Ownership proceeding. The Commission developed a revenue-based definition of eligible entity in order to promote small business participation in the broadcast industry. The Commission failed to adopt a race or gender conscious eligible entity standard. The Commission found the record was not sufficient to satisfy the constitutional standards to adopt race or gender conscious measures. In the 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission seeks comment on an incubator program to promote ownership diversity.
The FNPRM sought comment on three topics: (1) Issues related to the local simulcasting requirement, (2) whether to let broadcasters use vacant channels in the broadcast band, and (3) the import of the Next Gen standard on simulcasting stations.
In May 2016, the Commission released a Report and Order, FNPRM, and Order on Reconsideration (see Dockets 11-82 & 15-80). The Order on Reconsideration addressed outage reporting for events at airports, and the FNPRM sought comment on database sharing. Comments and replies were received by the Commission in August and September 2016.
Gregory Cooke, Deputy Chief, Policy and Licensing Division, PSHSB, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554,
The Spectrum Act requires that the incentive auction consist of a reverse auction “to determine the amount of compensation that each broadcast television licensee would accept in return for voluntarily relinquishing some or all of its spectrum usage rights and a forward auction” that would allow mobile broadband providers to bid for licenses in the reallocated spectrum. Broadcast television licensees who elected to voluntarily participate in the auction had three basic options: Voluntarily go off the air, share spectrum, or move channels in exchange for receiving part of the proceeds from auctioning that spectrum to wireless providers.
In June 2014, the Commission adopted a Report and Order that laid out the general framework for the incentive auction. The incentive auction started on March 29, 2016, with the submission of initial commitments by eligible broadcast licensees that had submitted timely and complete applications. The incentive auction officially ended on April 13, 2017, with the release of the
The March 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 115-141, 132 Stat. 348 (2018)) authorizes the Commission to reimburse eligible entities for costs associated with the post-incentive auction transition through July 3, 2023, and also directed the Commission to reimburse costs reasonably incurred by low power television stations, TV translator stations, and FM broadcast stations as a result of the post-auction reorganization of the television band. The Commission will initiate a new rulemaking to establish eligibility requirements and develop procedures for reimbursing these additional entities, and to identify reasonable costs for reimbursement. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order is scheduled for consideration at the Commission's August 2018 meeting. The statute directed the Commission to complete this proceeding by March 2019.
Today's action is a first step to implement the congressional directive in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act) to grant new initial licenses for the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands (the Lower H Block and Upper H Block, respectively) through a system of competitive bidding—unless doing so would cause harmful interference to commercial mobile service licenses in the 1930-1985 MHz (PCS downlink) band. The potential for harmful interference to the PCS downlink band relates only to the Lower H Block transmissions, and may be addressed by appropriate technical rules, including reduced power limits on H Block devices. We, therefore, propose to pair and license the Lower H Block and the Upper H Block for flexible use, including mobile broadband, aiming to assign the licenses through competitive bidding in 2013. In the event that we conclude that the Lower H Block cannot be used without causing harmful interference to PCS, we propose to license the Upper H Block for full power, and seek comment on appropriate use for the Lower H Block, including Unlicensed PCS.
In the Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on a process for wireless providers to disable contraband wireless devices once they have been identified. The Commission also seeks comment on additional methods and technologies that might prove successful in combating contraband device use in correctional facilities, and on various other proposals related to the authorization process for CISs and their deployment.
The Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order addressed several Petitions for Reconsideration submitted in response to the Report and Order and resolved the outstanding issues raised in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The 2017 NPRM sought comment on limited changes to the rules governing Priority Access Licenses in the band, adjacent channel emissions limits, and public release of base station registration information.
In the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NRO First Report and Order), released on March 31, 2000, the Commission adopted a mandatory utilization data reporting requirement, a uniform set of categories of numbers for which carriers must report their utilization, and a utilization threshold framework to increase carrier accountability and incentives to use numbers efficiently. In addition, the Commission adopted a single system for allocating numbers in blocks of 1,000, rather than 10,000, wherever possible, and established a plan for national rollout of thousands-block number pooling. The Commission also adopted numbering resource reclamation requirements to ensure that unused numbers are returned to the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) inventory for assignment to other carriers. Also, to encourage better management of numbering resources, carriers are required, to the extent possible, to first assign numbering resources within thousands blocks (a form of sequential numbering).
In the NRO Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted a measure that requires all carriers to use at least 60 percent of their numbering resources before they may get additional numbers in a particular area. That 60 percent utilization threshold increases to 75 percent over the next three years. The Commission also established a five-year term for the national pooling administrator and an auditing program to verify carrier compliance with the Commission's rules. Furthermore, the Commission declined to amend the existing Federal rules for area code relief or specify any new Federal guidelines for the implementation of area code relief. The Commission also declined to state a preference for either all-services overlays or geographic splits as a method of area code relief. Regarding mandatory nationwide ten-digit dialing, the Commission declined to adopt this measure at the present time. Furthermore, the Commission declined to mandate nationwide expansion of the “D digit” (the “N” of an NXX or central office code) to include zero or one, or to grant State commissions the authority to implement the expansion of the “D” digit as a numbering resource optimization measure presently.
In the NRO Third Report and Order, the Commission addressed national thousands-block number pooling administration issues, including declining to alter the implementation date for covered CMRS carriers to participate in pooling. The Commission also addressed Federal cost recovery for national thousands-block number pooling, and continued to require States to establish cost recovery mechanisms for costs incurred by carriers participating in pooling trials. The Commission reaffirmed the Months-To-Exhaust (MTE) requirement for carriers. The Commission declined to lower the utilization threshold established in the Second Report and Order, and declined to exempt pooling carriers from the utilization threshold. The Commission also established a safety valve mechanism to allow carriers that do not meet the utilization threshold in a given rate center to obtain additional numbering resources. In the NRO Third Report and Order, the Commission lifted the ban on technology-specific overlays (TSOs) and delegated authority to the Common Carrier Bureau, in consultation with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to resolve any such petitions. Furthermore, the Commission found that carriers who violate our numbering requirements, or fail to cooperate with an auditor conducting either a “for cause” or random audit, should be denied numbering resources in certain instances. The Commission also reaffirmed the 180-day reservation period, declined to impose fees to extend the reservation period, and found that State commissions should be allowed password-protected access to the NANP Administrator database for data pertaining to NPAs located within their State. The measures adopted in the NRO orders will allow the Commission to monitor more closely the way
In NRO Third Order on Recon in CC Docket No. 99-200, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99-200 and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No, 95-116, the Commission reversed its clarification that those requirements extend to all carriers in the largest 100 MSAs, regardless of whether they have received a request from another carrier to provide LNP. The Commission also sought comment on whether the Commission should again extend the LNP requirements to all carriers in the largest 100 MSAs, regardless of whether they receive a request to provide LNP. The Commission also sought comment on whether all carriers in the top 100 MSAs should be required to participate in thousands-block number pooling, regardless of whether they are required to be LNP capable. In addition, the Commission sought comment on whether all MSAs included in Combined Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSAs) on the Census Bureau's list of the largest 100 MSAs should be included on the Commission's list of the top 100 MSAs.
In the NRO Fourth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission reaffirmed that carriers must deploy LNP in switches within the 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) for which another carrier has made a specific request for the provision of LNP. The Commission delegated the authority to state commissions to require carriers operating within the largest 100 MSAs that have not received a specific request for LNP from another carrier to provide LNP, under certain circumstances and on a case-by-case basis. The Commission concluded that all carriers, except those specifically exempted, are required to participate in thousands-block number pooling in accordance with the national rollout schedule, regardless of whether they are required to provide LNP, including commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers that were required to deploy LNP as of November 24, 2003. The Commission specifically exempted from the pooling requirement rural telephone companies and Tier III CMRS providers that have not received a request to provide LNP. The Commission also exempted from the pooling requirement carriers that are the only service provider receiving numbering resources in a given rate center. Additionally, the Commission sought further comment on whether these exemptions should be expanded to include carriers where there are only two service providers receiving numbering resources in the rate center. Finally, the Commission reaffirmed that the 100 largest MSAs are identified in the 1990 U.S. Census reports, as well as those areas included on any subsequent U.S. Census report of the 100 largest MSAs.
In the NRO Order and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission granted petitions for delegated authority to implement mandatory thousands-block pooling filed by the Public Service Commission of West Virginia, the Nebraska Public Service Commission, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the Michigan Public Service Commission, and the Missouri Public Service Commission. In granting these petitions, the Commission permitted these states to optimize numbering resources and further extend the life of the specific numbering plan areas. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission sought comment on whether it should delegate authority to all states to implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling consistent with the parameters set forth in the NRO Order.
In its 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed to allow interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VOIP) providers to obtain telephone numbers directly from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator and the Pooling Administrator, subject to certain requirements. The Commission also sought comment on a forward-looking approach to numbers for other types of providers and uses, including telematics and public safety, and the benefits and number exhaust risks of granting providers other than interconnected VoIP providers direct access.
In its 2015 Report and Order, the Commission established an authorization process to enable interconnected VoIP providers that choose to obtain access to North American Numbering Plan telephone numbers directly from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator and/or the Pooling Administrator (Numbering Administrators), rather than through intermediaries. The Order also set forth several conditions designed to minimize number exhaust and preserve the integrity of the numbering system. Specifically, the Commission required interconnected VoIP providers obtaining numbers to comply with the same requirements applicable to carriers seeking to obtain numbers. The requirements included any state requirements pursuant to numbering authority delegated to the states by the Commission, as well as industry guidelines and practices, among others. The Commission also required interconnected VoIP providers to comply with facilities readiness requirements adapted to this context, and with numbering utilization and optimization requirements. In addition, as conditions to requesting and obtaining numbers directly from the Numbering Administrators, the Commission required interconnected VoIP providers to (1) provide the relevant State commissions with regulatory and numbering contacts when requesting numbers in those states, (2) request numbers from the Numbering Administrators under their own unique OCN, (3) file any requests for numbers with the relevant state commissions at least 30 days prior to requesting numbers from the Numbering Administrators, and (4) provide customers with the opportunity to access all abbreviated dialing codes (N11 numbers) in use in a geographic area. Finally, the Order also modified Commission's rules in order to permit VoIP Positioning Center providers to obtain pseudo-Automatic Number Identification codes directly from the Numbering Administrators for purposes of providing E911 services.
In 2016, the Commission issued a Report and Order extending the separations freeze for an additional 18 months until January 1, 2018. In 2017, the Joint Board issued a Recommended Decision recommending changes to the part 36 rules designed to harmonize them with the Commission's previous amendments to its part 32 accounting rules. In February 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing amendments to part 36 consistent with the Joint Board's recommendations. In July 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to extend the separations freeze for an additional 15 years and to provide rate-of-return carriers that had elected to freeze their category relationships a time limited opportunity to opt out of that freeze.
In the Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation Requirements First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, released on May 13, 2009, the Commission reduced the porting interval for simple wireline and simple intermodal port requests, requiring all entities subject to its local number portability (LNP) rules to complete simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal port requests within one business day. In a related Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Commission sought comment on what further steps, if any, the Commission should take to improve the process of changing providers.
In the LNP Standard Fields Order, released on May 20, 2010, the Commission adopted standardized data fields for simple wireline and intermodal ports. The Order also adopts the NANC's recommendations for porting process provisioning flows and for counting a business day in the context of number porting.
The 2015 Order on Reconsideration was upheld on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in
The U.S. Supreme Court denied writ of certiorari on April 30, 2018.
The Third FNPRM proposes and seeks comment on rules to implement the recently enacted RCC Act, which directs us to establish registration requirements and service quality standards for intermediate providers. The Third FNPRM also seeks comment on sunsetting the recording and retention rules established in 2013, and on further modification to our rural call completion rules. Per the RCC Act, the Commission must adopt rules establishing the registry by Aug. 25, 2018, and rules establishing service quality standards by Feb. 26, 2019.
On February 23, 2017, the Commission adopted an Report and Order that revised the part 32 USOA to substantially reduce accounting burdens for both price cap and rate-of-return carriers. First, the Order streamlines the USOA for all carriers. In addition, the USOA will be aligned more closely with generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP. Second, the Order allows price cap carriers to use GAAP for all regulatory accounting purposes as long as they comply with targeted accounting rules, which are designed to mitigate any impact on pole attachment rates. Alternatively, price cap carriers can elect to use GAAP accounting for all purposes other than those associated with pole attachment rates and continue to use the part 32 accounts for pole attachment rates for up to 12 years. Third, the Order addresses several miscellaneous issues, including referral to the Federal-State Joint Board on Separations the issue of examining jurisdictional separations rules in light of the reforms adopted to part 32.
On November 16, 2017, the Commission adopted a Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Wireline Infrastructure Order) that takes a number of actions and seeks comment on further actions designed to accelerate the deployment of next-generation networks and services through removing barriers to infrastructure investment.
The Wireline Infrastructure Order took a number of actions. First, the Report and Order revised the pole attachment rules to reduce costs for attachers, reforms the pole access complaint procedures to settle access disputes more swiftly, and increases access to infrastructure for certain types of broadband providers. Second, the Report and Order revised the section 214(a) discontinuance rules and the network change notification rules, including those applicable to copper retirements, to expedite the process for carriers seeking to replace legacy network infrastructure and legacy services with advanced broadband networks and innovative new services. Third, the Report and Order reversed a 2015 ruling that discontinuance authority is required for solely wholesale services to carrier-customers. Fourth, the Declaratory Ruling abandoned the 2014 “functional test” interpretation of when section 214 discontinuance applications are required, bringing added clarity to the section 214(a) discontinuance process for carriers and consumers alike. Finally, the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking sought comment on additional potential pole attachment reforms, reforms to the network change disclosure and section 214(a) discontinuance processes, and ways to facilitate rebuilding networks impacted by natural disasters.
On June 7, 2018, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order (Wireline Infrastructure Second Report and Order) taking further actions designed to expedite the transition from legacy networks and services to next generation networks and advanced services that benefit the American public and to promote broadband deployment by further streamlining the section 214(a) discontinuance rules, network change disclosure processes, and part 68 customer notification process.
The Wireline Infrastructure NPRM, NOI, and RFC sought comment on additional issues not addressed in the November Wireline Infrastructure Order or the June Wireline Infrastructure Second Report and Order. It sought comment on changes to the Commission's pole attachment rules to: (1) Streamline the timeframe for gaining access to utility poles; (2) reduce charges paid by attachers for work done to make a pole ready for new attachments; and (3) establish a formula for computing the maximum pole attachment rate that may be imposed on an incumbent LEC.
The Wireline Infrastructure NPRM, NOI, and RFC also sought comment on whether the Commission should enact rules, consistent with its authority under section 253 of the Act, to promote the deployment of broadband infrastructure by preempting state and local laws that inhibit broadband deployment. It also sought comment on whether there are state laws governing the maintenance or retirement of copper facilities that serve as a barrier to deploying next-generation technologies and services that the Commission might seek to preempt.
Previously, in November 2014, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling that: (i) Proposed new backup power rules; (ii) proposed new or revised rules for copper retirements and service discontinuances; and (iii) adopted a functional test in determining what constitutes a service for purposes of section 214(a) discontinuance review. In August 2015, the Commission adopted a Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that: (i) Lengthened and revised the copper retirement process; (ii) determined that a carrier must obtain Commission approval before discontinuing a service used as a wholesale input if the carrier's actions will discontinue service to a carrier-customer's retail end users; (iii) adopted an interim rule requiring incumbent LECs that seek to discontinue certain TDM-based wholesale services to commit to certain rates, terms, and conditions; (iv) proposed further revisions to the copper retirement discontinuance process; and (v) upheld the November 2014 Declaratory Ruling. In July 2016, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Order on Reconsideration that: (i) Adopted a new test for obtaining streamlined treatment when carriers seek Commission authorization to discontinue legacy services in favor of services based on newer technologies; (ii) set forth consumer education requirements for carriers seeking to discontinue legacy services in favor of services based on newer technologies; (iii) allowed notice to customers of discontinuance applications by email; (iv) required carriers to provide notice of discontinuance applications to Tribal entities; (v) made a technical rule change to create a new title for copper retirement notices and certifications; and (vi) harmonized the timeline for competitive LEC discontinuances caused by incumbent LEC network changes.
The Report and Order (Order) updated the rules to remove outmoded regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that no longer reflected current requirements or technology. It eliminated certain rules from which the Commission had granted unconditional forbearance for all carriers, and eliminated references to telegraph service from certain sections of the Commission's rules. Specifically, the Order deleted the following CFR provisions from which the Commission has forborne: (1) Sections 42.4, 42.5, and 42.7, which required carriers to preserve certain records; (2) section 64.1, which governed traffic damage claims for carriers engaged in radio-telegraph, wire-telegraph, or ocean-cable service; (3) section 64.301, which required carriers to provide communications services to foreign governments for international communications; (4) section 64.501, which governed telephone companies' obligations when recording telephone conversations; (5) section 64.804(c)-(g), which governed a carrier's recordkeeping and other obligations when it extended unsecured credit for communications services to candidates for federal office; and (6) section 64.5001(a)-(c)(2), and (c)(4), which imposed certain reporting and certification requirements on prepaid calling card providers. The Order also found that references to telegraph service in other rules are unnecessary and deleted them from the CFR. Specifically, it removed telegraph from: (1) Section 36.126 (separations); (2) section 54.706(a)(13) (universal service contributions); and (3) sections 63.60(c), 63.61, 63.62, 63.65(a)(4), 63.500(g), 63.501(g), and 63.504(k) (discontinuance). It also granted forbearance from the application of all exit regulation pursuant to section 214(a) of the Communications Act, as amended, to telegraph service.
The Order requires interconnected VoIP providers obtaining numbers to comply with the same requirements applicable to carriers seeking to obtain numbers. These requirements include any State requirements pursuant to numbering authority delegated to the
Finally, the Order also modifies Commission's rules in order to permit VoIP Positioning Center (VPC) providers to obtain pseudo-Automatic Number Identification (p-ANI) codes directly from the numbering administrators for purposes of providing E911 services.
The Universal Service Fund is paid for by contributions from telecommunications carriers, including wireline and wireless companies, and interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, including cable companies that provide voice service, based on an assessment on their interstate and international end-user revenues. The Universal Service Administrative Company, or USAC, administers the four programs and collects monies for the Universal Service Fund under the direction of the FCC.
On April 19, 2018, the Commission decided the legacy support issue arising from the ongoing reform and modernization of the universal service fund and intercarrier compensation systems.
On May 29, 2018, the Commission approved additional funding to restore communications networks in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and sought comment on almost $900 million in long-term funding for network expansion.
On June 25, 2018, the Commission addressed the current funding shortfall in the Rural Healthcare Program by raising the annual program budget cap to $571 million.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Board is issuing this agenda under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Board's Statement of Policy Regarding Expanded Rulemaking Procedures. The Board anticipates having under consideration regulatory matters as indicated below during the period November 1, 2018, through April 30, 2019. The next agenda will be published in spring 2019.
Comments about the form or content of the agenda may be submitted any time during the next 6 months.
Comments should be addressed to Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
A staff contact for each item is indicated with the regulatory description below.
The Board is publishing its fall 2018 agenda as part of the Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agenda also identifies rules the Board has selected for review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and public comment is invited on those entries. The complete Unified Agenda will be available to the public at the following website:
The Board's agenda is divided into four sections. The first, Proposed Rule Stage, reports on matters the Board may consider for public comment during the next 6 months. The second section, Final Rule Stage, reports on matters that have been proposed and are under Board consideration. The third section, Long-Term Actions, reports on matters where the next action is undetermined, 00/00/0000, or will occur more than 12 months after publication of the Agenda. And a fourth section, Completed Actions, reports on regulatory matters the Board has completed or is not expected to consider further. A dot (•) preceding an entry indicates a new matter that was not a part of the Board's previous agenda.
Ian Spear, Manager, Federal Reserve System, Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems, Washington, DC 20551,
Claudia Von Pervieux, Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
Laurie Schaffer, Associate General Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
Melissa Clark, Sr. Supervisory Financial Analyst, Federal Reserve System, Division of Supervision and Regulation, Washington, DC 20551,
Barbara Bouchard, Senior Associate Director, Federal Reserve System, Division of Supervision and Regulation, Washington, DC 20551,
Jay Schwarz, Senior Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
Will Giles, Senior Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
Claudia Von Pervieux, Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
Claudia Von Pervieux, Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The following agenda of the National Labor Relations Board is published in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
The Board's agenda refers to
For further information concerning the regulatory actions listed in the agenda, contact Farah Z. Qureshi, Associate Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE, Washington, DC 20570; telephone: (202) 273-1949, TTY/TDD 1-800-315-6572; email:
Farah Qureshi, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE, Washington, DC 20570,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
We are publishing our semiannual regulatory agenda (the Agenda) in accordance with Public Law 96-354, “The Regulatory Flexibility Act,” and Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” The Agenda is a compilation of all rulemaking activities on which we have recently completed action or have proposed or are considering action. We have completed 5 rulemaking activities since publication of our last Agenda on June 11, 2018. This issuance of our Agenda contains 29 active and 17 long-term rulemaking activities: 4 are Economically Significant; 10 represent Other Significant agency priorities; 29 are Substantive, Nonsignificant rulemaking activities; and 3 are Administrative rulemaking activities. In addition, 2 rulemaking activities impact small entities. This issuance also contains our annual regulatory plan, which contains information on some of our most important regulatory actions that we are considering issuing in proposed or final form during Fiscal Year 2018. Our regulatory plan was submitted to OMB in June 2018; updates have been reflected in the Agenda abstract for each rulemaking. We are requesting comment on the rulemaking activities as identified in this Agenda.
Submit comments on rulemaking activities as identified in this Agenda by December 17, 2018.
Submit comments on any rulemaking activity in the Agenda by the date and methods specified in any
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Cindy Bladey, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3280; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0132 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this document. You may obtain publically-available information related to this document by any of the following methods:
•
○ For completed rulemaking activities go to
○ For active rulemaking activities go to
○ For long-term rulemaking activities go to
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0132 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The Agenda is a compilation of all rulemaking activities on which an agency has recently completed action or has proposed or is considering action. The Agenda reports rulemaking activities in three major categories: Completed, active, and long-term. Completed rulemaking activities are those that were completed since publication of an agency's last Agenda; active rulemaking activities are those that an agency currently plans to have an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a Proposed Rule, or a Final Rule issued within the next 12 months; and long-term rulemaking activities are rulemaking activities under development but for which an agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 months after publication of the current edition of the Unified Agenda.
We assign a “Regulation Identifier Number” (RIN) to a rulemaking activity when our Commission initiates a rulemaking and approves a rulemaking plan, or when the NRC staff begins work on a Commission delegated rulemaking
The information contained in this Agenda is updated to reflect any action that has occurred on a rulemaking activity since publication of our last Agenda on June 11, 2018 (83 FR 27276). Specifically, the information in this Agenda has been updated through July 27, 2018. The NRC provides additional information on planned rulemaking and petition for rulemaking activities, including priority and schedule, on our website at
The date for the next scheduled action under the heading “Timetable” is the date the next regulatory action for the rulemaking activity is scheduled to be published in the
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to conduct a review within 10 years of promulgation of those regulations that have or will have a
The comment period on the NRC's last Agenda (published on June 11, 2018 (83 FR 27276) closed on July 11, 2018. We did not receive any written comments on our spring 2018 Agenda.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is publishing the Chairman's agenda of rulemaking actions pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164) (Sep. 19, 1980). The items listed in the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for fall 2018 reflect only the priorities of the Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and do not necessarily reflect the view and priorities of any individual Commissioner.
Information in the agenda was accurate on August 3, 2018, the date on which the Commission's staff completed compilation of the data. To the extent possible, rulemaking actions by the Commission since that date have been reflected in the agenda. The Commission invites questions and public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
The Commission is now printing in the
The Commission's complete RFA agenda will be available online at
Comments should be received on or before December 17, 2018.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
Send paper comments to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Mykaila DeLesDernier, Office of the General Counsel, 202-551-5129.
The RFA requires each Federal agency, twice each year, to publish in the
The following abbreviations for the acts administered by the Commission are used in the agenda:
The Commission invites public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
By the Commission.
Surface Transportation Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board is publishing the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for fall 2018.
A contact person is identified for each of the rules listed below.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
(1) A brief description of the subject area of any rule that the agency expects to propose or promulgate, which is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(2) A summary of the nature of any such rule under consideration for each subject area listed in the agenda pursuant to paragraph (1), the objectives and legal basis for the issuance of the rule, and an approximate schedule for completing the action on any rule for which the agency has issued a general notice of proposed rulemaking; and
(3) The name and telephone number of an agency official knowledgeable about the items listed in paragraph (1).
Accordingly, a list of proceedings appears below containing information about subject areas in which the Board is currently conducting rulemaking proceedings or may institute such proceedings in the near future. It also contains information about existing regulations being reviewed to determine whether to propose modifications through rulemaking.
The agenda represents the Chairman's best estimate of rules that may be considered over the next 12 months, but does not necessarily reflect the views of any other individual Board Member. However, section 602(d) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 602(d), provides: “Nothing in [section 602] precludes an agency from considering or acting on any matter not included in a Regulatory Flexibility Agenda or requires an agency to consider or act on any matter listed in such agenda.”
The Chairman is publishing the Agency's Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for fall 2018 as part of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Unified Agenda is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), pursuant to Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. The Board is participating voluntarily in the program to assist OMB and has included rulemaking proceedings in the Unified Agenda beyond those required by the RFA.
By the Board, Chairman Begeman.
Francis O'Connor, Section Chief, Chemical & Agricultural Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001,
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 |