Page Range | 63775-64022 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
83 FR 63824 - Proposed Establishment of the West Sonoma Coast Viticultural Area | |
83 FR 64021 - Human Rights Day, Bill of Rights Day, and Human Rights Week, 2018 | |
83 FR 63812 - Prevention of Alcohol Misuse and Prohibited Drug Use in Transit Operations | |
83 FR 63817 - Notification of Replacement Public Meeting on Requirement for Helicopters To Use the New York North Shore Helicopter Route | |
83 FR 63914 - 2019 Railroad Experience Rating Proclamations, Monthly Compensation Base and Other Determinations | |
83 FR 63888 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
83 FR 63858 - Good Neighbor Environmental Board; Notification of Public Advisory Committee Teleconference | |
83 FR 63858 - Proposed Modification to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges From Construction Activities | |
83 FR 63935 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Defined Terms “In-the-Money” and “Out-of-the-Money” in BX Options Rules at Chapter I, Section 1 | |
83 FR 63939 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Defined Terms “In-the-Money” and “Out-of-the-Money” in Chapter I, Section 1 | |
83 FR 63948 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Settlement Guide Procedures To Provide Status Information for Institutional Transactions To a Matching Utility | |
83 FR 63943 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the WisdomTree Long-Term Treasury PutWrite Strategy Fund, WisdomTree Corporate Bond PutWrite Strategy Fund, WisdomTree International PutWrite Strategy Fund, and WisdomTree Emerging Markets PutWrite Strategy Fund Under Rule 14.11(i), Managed Fund Shares | |
83 FR 63916 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Port Fees | |
83 FR 63946 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change Related To Amend Rule 6.21., Give Up of a Clearing Trading Permit Holder | |
83 FR 63915 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the BrandywineGLOBAL-Global Total Return ETF, a Series of Legg Mason ETF Investment Trust, Under Nasdaq Rule 5735 | |
83 FR 63947 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 715 Regarding Cancel and Replace Orders | |
83 FR 63933 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 715 | |
83 FR 63889 - Notice of Proposed Subaward Under a Council-Selected Restoration Component Award | |
83 FR 63846 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; AmeriCorps Member Application; Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request | |
83 FR 63865 - Proposed Joint Stipulation, Endangered Species Act Claims | |
83 FR 63902 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Data Collection for EnVision Center Demonstration Sites | |
83 FR 63892 - Biomarker Qualification: Evidentiary Framework; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
83 FR 63846 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Contract Financing (DFARS Case 2019-D001); Public Meetings | |
83 FR 63813 - Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; 2018 Recreational Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Red Grouper | |
83 FR 63837 - Schedules for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops | |
83 FR 63831 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS); Atlantic HMS Tournament Registration and Reporting; Selection of All Atlantic HMS Tournaments for Reporting | |
83 FR 63849 - Magnolia LNG, LLC; Notice of Application | |
83 FR 63857 - BP Energy Company, Equinor Natural Gas LLC, Shell NA LNG LLC, v. Dominion Energy Cove Point LNG, LP | |
83 FR 63849 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
83 FR 63856 - Dominion Energy Fairless, LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date | |
83 FR 63856 - Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date | |
83 FR 63851 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
83 FR 63853 - Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed 261 Upgrade Projects and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues | |
83 FR 63855 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
83 FR 63857 - Central Valley Project, California-Oregon Transmission Project, Pacific Alternating Current Intertie, Third-Party Transmission-Rate Order No. WAPA-185 | |
83 FR 63911 - New Postal Products | |
83 FR 63833 - Fishing Capacity Reduction Program for the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Non Pollock Groundfish Fishery | |
83 FR 63869 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
83 FR 63965 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Department of State Acquisition Regulation (DOSAR) | |
83 FR 63909 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested; Reinstatement, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection for Which Approval Has Expired: 2018 Census of Medical Examiner and Coroner Offices (CMEC) | |
83 FR 63909 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Reinstatement, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection for Which Approval Has Expired: Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities | |
83 FR 63847 - National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) | |
83 FR 63814 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Multipurpose Canister Cask System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1014, Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 | |
83 FR 63794 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Multipurpose Canister Cask System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1014, Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 | |
83 FR 63890 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
83 FR 63834 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; North Pacific Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Cost Recovery Programs | |
83 FR 63966 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Request for Reinstatement of Currently Approved Information Collection | |
83 FR 63826 - Approval of Subzone Status: Schumacher Electric Corporation, Fort Worth, Texas | |
83 FR 63826 - Approval of Subzone Status: BAUER-Pileco Inc., Conroe, Texas | |
83 FR 63829 - Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017 | |
83 FR 63830 - Silicomanganese From the People's Republic of China and Ukraine: Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Orders | |
83 FR 63912 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
83 FR 63888 - Meeting | |
83 FR 63825 - Notice of Request for Reinstatement of Approval of an Information Collection; Cooperative State-Federal Brucellosis Eradication Program | |
83 FR 63905 - Sodium Hexametaphosphate From China | |
83 FR 63804 - Safety Zone; Rocket Debris Control and Removal Operations, Atlantic Ocean, Cape Canaveral, FL | |
83 FR 63848 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS 2021) Field Test Recruitment | |
83 FR 63962 - Notice Announcing Addresses for Service of Process | |
83 FR 63891 - Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, President's Committee for People With Intellectual Disabilities | |
83 FR 63906 - Commerce in Explosives; 2018 Annual List of Explosive Materials | |
83 FR 63894 - The “Deemed to be a License” Provision of the BPCI Act: Questions and Answers; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability; Request for Comments on Preliminary List of Affected Applications | |
83 FR 63896 - Interpretation of the “Deemed To Be a License” Provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
83 FR 63900 - Biosimilars: Questions and Answers on Biosimilar Development and the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
83 FR 63898 - New and Revised Draft Q&As on Biosimilar Development and the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (Revision 2); Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
83 FR 63962 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 63887 - Regulation Q; Regulatory Capital Rules: Risk-Based Capital Surcharges for Global Systemically Important Bank Holding Companies | |
83 FR 63843 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review | |
83 FR 63839 - Madrid Protocol | |
83 FR 63841 - Practitioner Conduct and Discipline | |
83 FR 63904 - Clad Steel Plate From Japan | |
83 FR 63905 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
83 FR 63802 - Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Valuation of Benefits and Assets; Expected Retirement Age | |
83 FR 63967 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple IRS Information Collection Requests | |
83 FR 63817 - Definition of the Term “Biological Product” | |
83 FR 63832 - Endangered Species; File Nos. 21857, 22078, and 22324 | |
83 FR 63924 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE American Rule 5.1E(a)(2) | |
83 FR 63922 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 715 Regarding Cancel and Replace Orders | |
83 FR 63952 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating To Adopt a Shell Structure for the Cboe Options Rulebook in Connection With the Migration of the Exchange to Bats Technology | |
83 FR 63932 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Approval to a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Establish How the BZX Official Closing Price Would Be Determined for BZX-Listed Securities | |
83 FR 63919 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Rules 6.62-O and 6.37A-O To Add New Order Types and Quotation Designations | |
83 FR 63958 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE Arca Rule 5.1-E(a)(2) | |
83 FR 63953 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 510, Minimum Price Variations and Minimum Trading Increments, To Adopt Interpretations and Policies .03 | |
83 FR 63941 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend CHX Article 22, Rule 6(a) | |
83 FR 63919 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change Regarding Investments of the REX BKCM ETF | |
83 FR 63933 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of SolidX Bitcoin Shares Issued by the VanEck SolidX Bitcoin Trust | |
83 FR 63943 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Bid/Ask Differentials | |
83 FR 63955 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Bid/Ask Differentials | |
83 FR 63926 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Bid/Ask Differentials | |
83 FR 63937 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Bid/Ask Differentials | |
83 FR 63960 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change of Amendments to the Exchange's Rules To Delete References to the Term “Allied Member” and Correct Rule 2.1220 | |
83 FR 63911 - Arts Advisory Panel Meetings | |
83 FR 63870 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
83 FR 63906 - Hearings of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committees on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence | |
83 FR 63886 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB | |
83 FR 63827 - Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
83 FR 63852 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
83 FR 63856 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
83 FR 63775 - Temporary Extension of Applicability of Regulations Governing Conduct on Federal Property | |
83 FR 63868 - Request for Information on the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Application Process | |
83 FR 63885 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
83 FR 63888 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
83 FR 63965 - Modifications to the Disability Determination Procedures; End of the Single Decisionmaker Test and Extension of the Prototype Test | |
83 FR 63866 - Open Commission Meeting, Wednesday, December 12, 2018 | |
83 FR 63929 - Cliffwater Corporate Lending Fund and Cliffwater LLC | |
83 FR 63918 - Symmetry Panoramic Trust and Symmetry Partners, LLC | |
83 FR 63775 - Child Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium Requirements | |
83 FR 63970 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2019-2020 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures | |
83 FR 63806 - Aviation Radio Service | |
83 FR 63799 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Western Area Power Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
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.
Office of the Secretary, DHS.
Notification of temporary extension of the applicability of regulations.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, has temporarily extended the applicability and enforcement of certain regulations governing conduct on Federal property that is under the administrative jurisdiction and control of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) along the southwest border. This temporary administrative extension enables DHS to protect and secure Federal property along the southwest border within the control of CBP's San Diego Field Office, Tucson Field Office, Laredo Field Office and El Paso Field Office, and to carry out DHS's statutory obligations to protect and secure the nation's borders. The Federal property subject to this notice is limited to the specific geographic area within the administrative control of CBP along the length of the U.S. border with Mexico.
Pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 1315(d), the extension began on November 17, 2018 and will continue until May 31, 2019.
Joshua A. Vayer, 703-235-6082,
Pursuant to section 1706 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002), as codified at 40 U.S.C. 1315, the Secretary of Homeland Security is responsible for protecting the buildings, grounds, and property owned, occupied, or secured by the Federal government (including any agency, instrumentality, or wholly owned or mixed ownership corporation thereof) and the persons on the property. To carry out this mandate, the Department is authorized to enforce the applicable Federal regulations for the protection of persons and property set forth in 41 CFR part 102-74, subpart C.
Throughout October and November 2018, a large group of Central American migrants is traveling as part of a caravan toward the Southwest Border of the United States. Acts of violence against immigration security services have been reported. As part of Department-wide efforts to mitigate security challenges which may arise as the migrants approach the Southwest Border of the United States, including the possibility of access to Federal property by unauthorized individuals, planning for an appropriate response is warranted. Specifically, this action will afford Federal law enforcement officers a wide range of enforcement tools to enforce Federal rules pertaining to individuals' conduct on the Federal property. The affected Federal property is along the Southwest Border of the United States and within the control of CBP's San Diego Field Office, Tucson Field Office, Laredo Field Office, and El Paso Field Office including but not limited to ports of entry, access roads, barriers, parking structures, and buildings temporarily erected to support processing of the large group of migrants. The Federal property that is subject to this notice is limited to the specific geographic area within the U.S. Border with Mexico. Specifically, I temporarily extended the applicability, allowing the enforcement, of the regulations in 41 CFR part 102-74, subpart C, for the protection and administration of property owned or occupied by the Federal Government and persons on the above-specified property along the Southwest Border of the United States.
The regulations in 41 CFR part 102-74, subpart C, will remain applicable and enforceable at these locations along the Southwest Border of the United States for six months after the date of my signature of this notice.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Final rule.
This final rule will codify, with some extensions, three menu planning flexibilities temporarily established by the interim final rule of the same title published November 30, 2017. First, it will broaden the milk options in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program by allowing local operators to permanently offer flavored, low-fat milk. For consistency across nutrition programs, it will also allow flavored, low-fat milk in the Special Milk Program for Children and in the Child
This rule is effective February 11, 2019.
Tina Namian, Chief, School Programs Branch, Policy and Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service, telephone: 703-305-2590.
This final rule will increase flexibility in the Child Nutrition Program requirements related to milk, grains, and sodium effective SY 2019-2020, which begins July 1, 2019. This rule is the culmination of the rulemaking process initiated by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) following the Secretary's May 1, 2017, Proclamation affirming USDA's commitment to assist schools in overcoming operational challenges related to the school meals regulations implemented in 2012.
In 2012, USDA updated the National School Lunch (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) meal requirements to reflect the latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans, as required by the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act in Section 9(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(4). The implementing regulations
With regard to the milk, grains, and sodium requirements, the regulations implemented in 2012:
• Allowed flavoring only in fat-free milk in the NSLP and SBP;
• Required that half of the grains offered in the NSLP be whole grain-rich in SY 2012-2013 and one year later in the SBP; and required that effective SY 2014-2015, all grains offered in both programs be whole grain-rich (meaning the grain product contains at least 50 percent whole grains and the remaining grain content of the product must be enriched); and
• Required schools participating in the NSLP and SBP to gradually reduce the sodium content of meals offered on average over the school week by meeting progressively lower sodium targets over a 10-year period.
Before and after the regulations were implemented in 2012, USDA offered guidance, technical assistance resources, and tailored training programs for Program operators in collaboration with the Institute for Child Nutrition (formerly, National Food Service Management Institute). Program advocates, the food industry, and other stakeholders also collaborated with USDA in different ways to assist operators with implementation. This enabled many operators to adopt most of the changes to the NSLP and SBP meal patterns. Child nutrition and public health advocates who submitted public comments noted that children's eating habits are improving and student participation in the school meal programs is increasing in many school districts. USDA acknowledges the significant efforts and progress these schools have achieved. However, the changes are only truly successful when all of America's school children eat and enjoy the school meals.
While some Program operators have had great success in implementing the updated nutrition standards in a way that encourages healthy eating and participation, some school meal programs require additional flexibility and support from USDA to meet this goal. USDA continues to hear from Program operators about persistent challenges with the milk, grains, and sodium requirements. The challenges identified by operators include decreased student participation and/or meal consumption, difficulties preparing whole grain-rich food items, and limited ability to offer appealing meals with lower sodium content.
The Secretary of Agriculture acknowledged these challenges in the May 1, 2017, Proclamation and committed to working with stakeholders to ensure that the milk, grains, and sodium requirements are practical and result in wholesome and appealing meals. Subsequently, and consistent with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31), USDA issued policy guidance (SP 32-2017, May 22, 2017,
• Provide NSLP and SBP operators the option to offer flavored low-fat (1 percent fat) milk with the meal and as a beverage for sale during the school day, and apply the flexibility in the SMP and CACFP for participants age 6 and older;
• Extend the State agencies' option to allow individual school food authorities to include grains that are not whole grain-rich in the weekly NSLP and SBP menus; and
• Retain Sodium Target 1 in the NSLP and SBP.
As discussed in the interim final rule preamble (82 FR 56703, November 30, 2017), there have been numerous administrative and legislative actions over the last few years to provide flexibility to schools with regard to the whole grain-rich and sodium requirements.
As a key part of USDA's regulatory reform agenda, this final rule seeks to ensure that school meals regulations work for all operators, while reflecting the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, as Section 9(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(4) requires. All participating children will continue to have access to fruit, an array of vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free and low-fat milk, and school meals will continue to provide appropriate calorie ranges, limited saturated fat, and no added trans-fat. The targeted modifications in this final rule, effective July 1, 2019 (SY 2019-2020), apply only to the milk, whole grain-rich, and sodium requirements. This rule demonstrates USDA's commitment to alleviate regulatory burdens, provides school nutrition professionals the flexibility and predictability they repeatedly request to successfully operate the Child Nutrition Programs, and ensures that Program regulations are practical for all local providers. This rule will help Program operators provide wholesome and appealing meals that reflect the Dietary Guidelines and meet the needs and preferences of their communities. It is important to note that schools are not required to change their menus and can choose whether or not to use the flexibilities this rule provides.
The public comments that helped inform this final rule are discussed next.
USDA appreciates the significant public interest in the interim final rule
USDA worked in collaboration with a data analysis company to code and analyze the public comments using a commercial web-based software product and obtained data showing support for or opposition to each meal flexibility. The Summary of Public Comments report is available under the Supporting Documentation tab in docket FNS-2017-0021.
The vast majority of the total public submissions were form letters. There were 16 form letter campaigns, which comprised 84,453 form letter copies. These comments were submitted by individuals participating in letter campaigns organized primarily by MomsRising, the American Heart Association Sodium Reduction Initiative, Salud America!, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. These form letters were mostly from parents and other individuals urging USDA to retain strong nutrition requirements for school meals.
In addition to the form letter copies, there were 1,738 unique submissions that provided substantive comments on issues specific to the three menu planning flexibilities and were therefore very useful in informing the development of this final rule. These unique comments, which included the master letter for each of the form letter campaigns, reflected a wide range of opinions—support, opposition, and mixed comments on each of the flexibilities. These comments were submitted by individuals, school district personnel, students, healthcare professionals, parents/guardians, dietitians/nutritionists, policy advocacy organizations, professional associations, State agency directors, trade/industry associations, nutrition/anti-hunger advocates, school nutrition advocacy organizations, academics/researchers, and the food industry. For example, stakeholders that submitted unique comments include: the School Nutrition Association, State agencies, School Superintendents Association, Council of Great City Schools, American Public Health Association, American Heart Association, Center for Science in the Public Interest, MomsRising, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, Food Research & Action Center, American Commodity Distribution Association, Grocery Manufacturers Association, General Mills, and Mars, Incorporated.
The following tables show tallies of the total and unique comments received for each of the meal flexibilities addressed in the interim final rule:
In general, commenters in favor of the flexibilities argued that these provide more menu planning options for schools and thus enhance their ability to offer wholesome and appealing meals. They stated that the flexibilities will lead to increased meal consumption and better health outcomes for students. The School Nutrition Association, representing 57,000 members, urged USDA to adopt a permanent solution to operational challenges rather than temporary rules and annual waivers.
Commenters opposed to the flexibilities argued that these are not needed because most schools report being in compliance with the meal patterns, and the flexibilities could restrain schools' progress in increasing whole grains and reducing sodium intake. Many expressed interest in retaining the meal patterns as implemented in 2012, and stated their concern about children's continued access to wholesome school meals and the need to help children develop positive dietary habits for life.
In addition to specific comments about the milk, whole grain-rich, and sodium flexibilities, commenters provided general feedback on the interim final rule. The following table shows tallies of the general comments received in support of and against the meal flexibilities addressed in the interim final rule. Many of the opposing comments were submitted as part of the form letter campaigns described above:
After careful consideration of all stakeholders' comments, USDA believes that school nutrition operators have made the case that this final rule's targeted regulatory flexibility is practical and necessary for efficient Program operation. The targeted regulatory flexibility will improve student participation without a detrimental effect on the overall quality of the meals offered to children. Some commenters opposed to the flexibilities voiced concerns about the potential impact of the flexibilities on various segments of the student population. USDA is addressing these concerns separately in the Civil Rights Impact Analysis, which is available under the Supporting Documentation tab in docket FNS-2017-0021.
The following is a high-level summary of the flexibilities as stated in the interim final rule (82 FR 56703, November 30, 2017), the key concerns and arguments expressed by commenters, and USDA's response. Miscellaneous comments regarding food quantities, meal costs, calorie limits, and other topics unrelated to the flexibilities in the interim final rule are not discussed in this preamble, but are included in the Summary of Public Comments report.
Prior to publication of the interim final rule, USDA received 580 postcards expressing opposition to the flexibilities as stated in the Secretary's May 1, 2017, Proclamation. These postcards were not submitted in response to the interim final rule and, therefore, were not included in the comment analysis or as part of the public record for this rulemaking. They would not, in any event, alter the agency's final conclusions herein.
In SY 2018-2019, the interim final rule:
• Allows schools to offer flavored, low-fat milk in the NSLP (including as a beverage for sale during the school day) and the SBP (7 CFR 210.10(d)(1)(i); 7 CFR 210.11(m)(1)(ii), (m)(2)(ii) and (m)(3)(ii); and 7 CFR 220.8(d));
• Allows flavored, low-fat milk in the Special Milk Program for Children
• Allows flavored, low-fat milk in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) for children ages 6 and older and adults (7 CFR 226.20(a)(1)(iii) and (iv); and 7 CFR 226.20(c)(1), (2) and (3)).
Commenters in support of the milk flexibility included individuals, a school nutrition organization, State agencies, food manufacturers, and trade associations. Supporters generally expressed concern related to the decline in children's milk consumption. They argued that allowing flavored, low-fat milk will provide schools more menu planning options, promote students' milk consumption, and lead to better health outcomes.
A nutritionist, healthcare professional, and food manufacturer stated that allowing flavored, low-fat milk will increase milk consumption and result in greater intake of essential nutrients such as vitamin D, magnesium, and calcium. A healthcare professional and members of academia stated that the minor increase in calories from flavored, low-fat milk could be offset with appropriate menu planning. A dairy trade association asserted that the net increase in calories between fat-free and low-fat, flavored milk is small due to progress made by dairy processors in reducing the calories in flavored milk. According to the commenter, milk processors have reduced the calorie and added sugar content of flavored milk between SY 2006-2007 and SY 2015-2016 by more than 9 grams per serving (or 55 percent) in chocolate milk produced for the school market.
A State agency suggested that the flexibility should be offered across all Federal Child Nutrition Programs for consistency. A few commenters offered suggestions unrelated to the milk flexibility, such as allowing schools to offer non-dairy milk options, and eliminating all fat limits on fluid milk offered in schools.
Commenters opposed to the milk flexibility included parents and individuals, public health practitioners, and nutrition advocates. These commenters generally expressed health concerns related to added sugar in flavored milk. They argued that offering flavored, low-fat milk contradicts expert nutrition recommendations and could lead to increased sugar, fat, and calorie intake by children in the near and long term. They argued that schools offering flavored, low-fat milk may have to offer less food to offset the extra calories associated with this option, and said that school meals with flavored low-fat milk could exceed the weekly calorie ranges while offering no additional nutritional benefit. Others stated that the milk flexibility is unnecessary because students seem to accept unflavored, low-fat milk and unflavored/flavored, fat-free milk.
Several commenters argued that the milk flexibility as stated in the interim final rule is inconsistent with congressional intent because it does not require school districts to demonstrate a reduction in student milk consumption or an increase in school milk waste, which is specified in Section 747(c) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017.
A policy advocacy organization argued that, because milk is consumed so frequently by children, restricting flavor to fat-free milk helps decrease the amount of saturated fat in children's diets. The commenter also commended USDA for continuing to prohibit flavored milk for children under six years old.
A few individuals and public advocacy organizations also opposed allowing flavored, low-fat milk as a competitive beverage for sale in schools. They stated that, because schools are largely prohibited from selling most sugar-sweetened beverages on campus during the school day, there is no longer a need to offer flavored milk as an appealing option relative to other beverages with higher sugar content.
A few commenters expressed conditional support or opposition, or offered suggestions for improving the interim final rule. For example, a State agency in favor of the milk flexibility recommended that USDA include a requirement that at least one type of unflavored milk be available at the meal service.
Several commenters opposed to the milk flexibility recommended that if USDA allows flavored, low-fat milk, a calorie limit of no more than 130 calories per 8 ounce serving should be established, consistent with the Robert Wood Johnson's Healthy Eating Research Healthier Beverage Guidelines. A few individuals and school district personnel suggested that USDA allow reduced fat (2%) milk or whole milk for health reasons rather than provide flexibility to offer flavored, low-fat or non-fat milk.
Beginning SY 2019-2020, this final rule will provide NSLP and SBP operators with the option to offer flavored, low-fat milk and require that unflavored milk be offered at each meal service. For consistency, the flavored, low-fat milk option will be extended to beverages for sale during the school day, and will also apply in the SMP and CACFP for participants ages 6 and older. We recognize that regulatory consistency across programs, a long-time practice at USDA, facilitates program administration and operation at the State and local levels, fosters customer support, and meets customers' expectations. The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) currently allows flavored, low-fat milk with summer meals so this rule makes no change to milk service in the SFSP.
By broadening the flavored milk choices in the Child Nutrition Programs, USDA seeks to remove regulatory restrictions that may hinder milk consumption. USDA's decision to expand the milk choices is based on stakeholders' concerns over decreasing milk consumption in the U.S. population. Data from USDA's Economic Research Service shows a decrease in fluid milk consumption from 197 pounds per person in 2000 to 154 pounds per person in 2016.
For operational efficiency, operators will be allowed to serve flavored low-fat milk without the need to demonstrate hardship. This will relieve schools from submitting written justification and evidence (
Eliminating the need to demonstrate hardship is consistent with the underlying statutory authority. The provision cited by commenters, Section 747(c) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, expires with the 2017-2018 school year, whereas this rule is effective with the 2019-2020 school year. Further, under section 9(a)(2) of the National School Lunch Act, students must be provided with a variety of fluid milk and milk may be flavored or unflavored; there is no statutory requirement to demonstrate hardship in order to serve low-fat, flavored milk.
A comment from a State agency recommended that the milk flexibility include the requirement that operators offer unflavored milk at each meal service, in addition to any flavored milk offered. USDA agrees with this recommendation. Therefore, upon implementation of this rule, NSLP and SBP operators that choose to offer flavored milk must also offer unflavored milk (fat-free or low-fat) at the same meal service. This requirement will ensure that milk variety in the NSLP and SBP is not limited to flavored milk choices. It is expected to help schools that choose to offer flavored milk in their menus stay within the weekly dietary specifications. USDA believes that most schools would continue to offer unflavored milk at each meal service to meet parents' expectations, even if offering unflavored milk was not a requirement.
USDA recognizes the importance of having unflavored milk as a choice for students at each lunch and breakfast service. Many comments from parents, public health practitioners, and nutrition advocates voiced concerns over added sugars in the school meals and expressed a strong interest in retaining children's access to unflavored milk. We are aware that parents may want their children to drink unflavored milk at lunch and breakfast (
Some commenters recommended calorie limits for individual servings of flavored, low-fat milk (no more than 130 calories per 8 ounce serving). Since the NSLP and SBP calorie limits apply to the meals offered on average over the school week, this final rule will not set calorie limits for individual servings of flavored, low-fat milk. However, school food authorities that choose to offer flavored, low-fat milk are encouraged to obtain relevant information, such as the Robert Wood Johnson's Healthy Eating Research Healthier Beverage Guidelines, to inform procurement decisions. In addition, school food authorities that choose to offer flavored, low-fat milk should plan menus carefully to ensure that the weekly meals stay within the required calorie and saturated fat limits, and consult with their State agency as necessary to make proper menu adjustments.
Some commenters stated that the milk flexibility is unnecessary because most students seem to have accepted the 2012 provision that limits flavor to fat-free milk. While USDA acknowledges that many school food authorities have incorporated the 2012 meal patterns, USDA agrees with the Program operators who commented that expanding milk choices will likely improve student participation in the school meals programs and increase milk consumption. Offering flavored, low-fat milk expands the options available to schools to meet the milk requirement. Schools can choose to pursue this flavored milk option, or not, based on local preference. USDA encourages parents and students to provide feedback to their school food service operators regarding the menus and food products offered to students at lunch and breakfast (see existing provision at 7 CFR 210.12(a)).
The local school wellness policy, 7 CFR 210.31, also provides students, parents and interested community members an important opportunity to influence the school nutrition environment at large. In addition, as allowed in 7 CFR 210.19(e), State agencies have discretion to set stricter requirements that are not inconsistent with the minimum nutrition standards for school meals.
Accordingly, this final rule will amend the following milk provisions effective SY 2019-2020:
• NSLP (7 CFR 210.10(d)(1)(i); 7 CFR 210.11(m)(1)(ii), (m)(2)(ii) and (m)(3)(ii));
• SBP (7 CFR 220.8(d));
• SMP (7 CFR 215.7(a)(3)); and
• CACFP (7 CFR 226.20(a)(1)(iii) and (iv) and 7 CFR 226.20(c)(1), (2) and (3)).
The interim final rule provides State agencies through SY 2018-2019 discretion to grant exemptions to the whole grain-rich requirement to school food authorities that demonstrate hardship. School food authorities receiving an exemption must offer at least half of the weekly grains as whole grain-rich. (7 CFR 210.10(c)(2)(iv)(B) and 7 CFR 220.8(c)(2)(iv)(B)).
Several commenters, including a food industry association, school district personnel, and individual commenters, reasoned that whole grain-rich exemptions should be allowed because some products (
Many commenters, including advocacy organizations, healthcare professionals, and form letters submitted by individuals, stated that the whole grain-rich flexibility should not be allowed because of the public health benefits associated with the consumption of whole grains. Commenters argued that schools should provide the healthiest foods possible, including whole grain-rich foods, because school meals may be the only wholesome meals available to some segments of the student population.
Advocacy organizations, professional associations, healthcare professionals, and individuals said there is no need for the whole grain-rich flexibility because a significant percentage of schools are complying with the requirement and have not requested exemptions. Rather than exemptions, several commenters recommended that USDA provide additional training and technical assistance.
Some commenters expressed conditional support or opposition, or offered suggestions for improving the interim final rule. A school nutrition organization, school district personnel, State agencies, professional associations, an advocacy organization, and individual commenters suggested that instead of extending the existing whole grain-rich flexibility, USDA should set a more flexible regulatory requirement for whole grains. Recommendations included the following:
• Requiring that at least half of the grains offered in the weekly menu be whole grain-rich;
• Requiring that at least 75 percent of the grains offered in the weekly menu be whole grain-rich; and
• Allowing one non-whole grain-rich menu item in the weekly menu.
In general, these commenters noted the exemption request process, which was legislatively required, is burdensome for school food authorities and State agencies.
Beginning SY 2019-2020, this final rule will require that at least half of the weekly grains offered in the NSLP and SBP meet the whole grain-rich criteria specified in FNS guidance, and that the remaining grain items offered must be enriched. This decision, recommended by the School Nutrition Association, representing 57,000 school nutrition professionals, is consistent with USDA's commitment to alleviate difficult regulatory requirements, simplify operational procedures, and provide school food authorities ample flexibility to address local preferences. By setting a more feasible whole grain-rich requirement in the NSLP and SBP, school districts nationwide are expected to incorporate whole grains easily while still providing menu items that meet local preferences. This change will remove the need for whole grain-rich exemption requests based on hardship, which many commenters, including State and local Program operators, described as burdensome.
The requirement to offer exclusively whole grain-rich products proved impractical for many school districts and, due to a long history of administrative and legislative actions allowing exemptions, it was never fully implemented nationwide. Seeking to assist operators, USDA allowed enriched pasta exemptions for SYs 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, and Congress expanded the pasta flexibility to include other grain products. Through successive legislative action, Congress directed the USDA to allow State agencies to grant individual whole grain-rich exemptions (Section 751 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235); and Section 733 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113)). In addition, Section 747 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31) (2017 Appropriations Act) provided flexibilities related to whole grains for SY 2017-2018. Most recently, Section 101(a)(1) of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018, Division D of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 and Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2017, Public Law 115-56, enacted September 8, 2017, extended the flexibilities provided by section 747 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 through December 8, 2017. The 2017 Appropriations Act provided authority for whole grain-rich exemptions through the end of SY 2017-2018, and the interim final rule (82 FR 56703) extends the availability of exemptions through SY 2018-2019. Despite all of these administrative and legislative actions, some school food authorities continue to experience challenges. Nevertheless, for SY 2017-2018, a total of 4,297 school food authorities (about 23 percent of school food authorities operating the school meal programs) submitted whole grain-rich exemption requests based on hardship, and nearly all (4,124) received exemption approval from their State agency.
USDA recognizes that it is not feasible to operate these nationwide programs in an ad hoc fashion, with recurrent exemptions, without giving operators and the food industry a workable regulatory solution that provides the long-term certainty they need for food procurement and product reformulation. At the same time, USDA is mindful of commenters' concerns about the health and dietary habits of children, and agrees that schools should provide the healthiest foods possible. The whole grain-rich requirement in this final rule is a minimum standard, not a maximum, and reflects in a practical and feasible way the Dietary Guidelines' emphasis on whole grains consumption. Requiring that at least half of the weekly grains offered in the NSLP and SBP be whole grain-rich is a minimum standard that schools have already accomplished and is highly achievable, supported by the School Nutrition Association, and provides exceptional flexibility for local operators in planning wholesome and appealing school meals.
By re-implementing the whole grain-rich requirement that was in place from SY 2012-2013 through SY 2013-2014, USDA recognizes the nutritional benefits of whole grains as well as the need for gradual adjustments in school menu planning, procurement, and food service equipment. USDA expects that many schools will continue to provide a significant portion of their grain products each week in the form of whole grain-rich foods as they are currently required to do so. As noted above, at least half of the grains offered weekly must be whole grain-rich, and the other grain items offered must be enriched.
USDA encourages Program operators to incorporate whole grain-rich products in the school menu when possible, especially in popular menu items such as pizza. USDA will continue to provide training and technical assistance resources to assist in these efforts. In addition, USDA Foods will continue to make whole grain-rich products easily available to Program operators. For example, whole grain or whole grain-rich USDA Foods available to schools for SY 2018-2019 include flour, rolled oats, pancakes, tortillas, and several varieties of pasta and rice. Requiring that half of the weekly grains be whole grain-rich is intended to set a floor and not a ceiling. Schools already offering all grains as whole grain-rich do not have to change their menus as a result of this final rule.
As stated earlier, 7 CFR 210.19(e) allows State agencies discretion to set additional requirements that are not inconsistent with the minimum nutrition standards for school meals. For example, State agencies could require school food authorities to offer whole grain-rich products for four days in the school week (or approximately 80 percent of the weekly meals), thus allowing enriched grains one day each week, as suggested by a commenter. At the local level, 7 CFR 210.12(a) allows students, parents and community members to influence menu planning by
Accordingly, this final rule will amend the following grains provisions effective SY 2019-2020:
• NSLP (7 CFR 210.10(c)(2)(iv)(B)); and
• SBP (7 CFR 220.8(c)(2)(iv)(B)).
The interim final rule retained Sodium Target 1 in the NSLP and SBP through SY 2018-2019 (7 CFR 210.10(f)(3) and 7 CFR 220.8(f), respectively), and requested comments on the long-term availability of this flexibility. It also retained Target 2 and the final target as part of the sodium reduction timeline.
School personnel and individual commenters spoke about the work done by school food service professionals, manufacturers, and vendors in striving to meet Sodium Target 1. These commenters also expressed concern about the acceptance of meals with lower sodium content by students, who are accustomed to eating foods with higher sodium content outside of school. Trade associations, a healthcare professional, and a nutritionist said that extending Sodium Target 1 through SY 2018-2019 is necessary as there are challenges in reducing sodium across the food supply.
Several commenters stated that schools not equipped for “scratch” cooking rely heavily on processed/manufactured foods; therefore, these commenters think it is appropriate to extend Target 1 until the food industry is able to develop palatable products with lower sodium content. Other commenters and a professional association argued that there is no conclusive scientific evidence to support the benefits of further sodium reduction in school meals, and there is uncertainty about the long-term effects on child or teen development and overall health.
Trade associations, a healthcare professional, and a nutritionist said extending Sodium Target 1 is important to accommodate the ongoing update of the current Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) for sodium and potassium. The DRIs, a set of reference values used to plan and assess the diets of healthy individuals and groups, are updated periodically as needed. The commenters said USDA should wait for the DRI review currently underway by The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) before taking further action on sodium reduction. NASEM DRI review of sodium and potassium began in fall 2017 and a draft report is expected by spring 2019. See more information about the DRIs at
A State agency and trade associations supported extending Target 1 through at least the end of SY 2020-2021. A school nutrition organization and school district personnel supported retaining Target 1 as the final sodium target and eliminating the other sodium targets.
A professional association and policy advocacy organization stated that Target 3 (the final target) is fundamentally unattainable. They expressed concern that the final sodium target relies on changes to manufacturing processes that could use technologies or chemical substitutes that pose greater health risks than the sodium they would replace.
Many individual commenters participating in form letter campaigns, a State agency, policy advocacy organizations, and professional associations expressed concern that the sodium flexibility will lead to negative health effects in children, such as increased risk of high blood pressure, heart disease, obesity, and stroke. A policy advocacy organization said lowering sodium consumption, and thereby reducing the risk of high blood pressure, can substantially reduce public health costs.
Commenters also asserted that there is no need for sodium flexibility because Sodium Target 2 is achievable and many school districts are working toward or already providing wholesome and appealing meals with less sodium. A policy advocacy association said that several food companies, such as Aramark, General Mills, Kraft-Heinz, Mars Food, Nestle, PepsiCo, Tyson Foods, Subway, Panera, and Unilever, have been leaders in voluntary sodium reduction and, therefore, there are more products with healthier levels of sodium readily available in the marketplace. A food manufacturer stated that its commitment to developing a range of lower sodium options demonstrates the industry's ability to be a productive partner in addressing crucial public health problems. Other commenters expressed concern that extending the Target I flexibility could lead industry to halt reformulation and innovation efforts, and discourage school efforts to continue sodium reduction.
Some commenters expressed concern that extending Target 1 moves meal requirements away from evidenced-based dietary guidance. A policy advocacy organization stated that the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act requires that school meals be aligned with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and continuing to delay implementation of the sodium targets creates inconsistency with the law. In addition, policy advocacy associations, professional associations, and individuals participating in form letter campaigns opposed extending Target 1 until SY 2020-2021, stating it would harm children's health. Many commenters stated that, rather than delaying the sodium targets, USDA should address remaining challenges by providing operators targeted training, technical assistance, and demonstrated strategies and best practices.
Some commenters provided mixed feedback on the flexibility, including conditional support or opposition, or suggestions for improvement. A food bank supported the retention of Target 1 through the end of SY 2018-2019, but asserted that school districts should be encouraged to procure and introduce lower sodium foods in preparation for the implementation of Target 2. A school advocacy organization encouraged USDA to implement Target 2 “at a future date.” Two chapters of a school nutrition organization that supported the Target 1 flexibility also suggested eventual implementation of Target 2. A professional association and policy advocacy organization supported delaying Target 2 and recommended that Target 2 should be the final target. The commenters also recommended that USDA re-evaluate Target 2 in light of science-based research and the DRI for sodium.
This final rule will provide schools in the NSLP and SBP more time for gradual sodium reduction by retaining Sodium Target 1 through the end of SY 2023-2024, requiring compliance with Sodium Target 2 in SY 2024-2025 (which begins July 1, 2024; see charts), and eliminating the Final Target that would have gone into effect in SY 2022-2023.
In developing this final rule, USDA was mindful of the review of the DRIs for sodium and potassium intake currently underway by The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Some commenters said that USDA should extend Target 1 to accommodate the DRI review, which will inform the public on goals for long-term sodium reduction. In addition, the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans are expected to be released by the end of calendar year 2020. USDA agrees that it is reasonable to extend Target 1, delay Target 2 implementation, and refrain from setting sodium reduction goals beyond Target 2 until the DRI report and the 2020 Dietary Guidelines are published and USDA has the opportunity to assess their impact on school meals. In retaining Target 2, USDA is recognizing the need for further sodium reduction. However, delaying implementation of Target 2 until July 1, 2024, will ensure that USDA has the time necessary to make any regulatory adjustments based on the most current scientific recommendations, including providing adequate notice to stakeholders of any such adjustments. In the meantime, the sodium timeline established by this rule will provide schools and the food industry the regulatory certainty they need to conduct food procurement and product reformulation activities. We recognize that regulatory certainty is essential to incentivize the food industry's efforts to support the service of wholesome and appealing school meals.
Extending Target 1 is also important for practical reasons. As noted by several commenters, many schools are not equipped for scratch cooking, which makes further sodium reduction challenging. Setting a more flexible approach to sodium reduction allows more time for product reformulation, school menu adjustments, food service changes, personnel training, and changes in student preferences. State agencies that commented on the sodium timeline generally noted that school districts need more time for sodium reduction.
For the sake of clarity, it is important to note that the sodium limit applies to the average meal offered during the school week; it does not apply per day or per meal. Menu planners may offer a relatively high sodium meal or high sodium food at some point during the week if meals with lower to moderate sodium content are offered the rest of the week.
USDA remains committed to strong nutrition standards for school meals, consistent with the statutory requirement that school meals reflect the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Our intention is to ensure that the sodium targets reflect the most current Dietary Guidelines for Americans and DRIs, are feasible for most schools, and allow them to plan appealing meals that encourage consumption and intake of key nutrients that are essential for children's growth and development. USDA also shares commenter concerns that near-term implementation of further sodium reduction in schools could potentially lower the acceptance of meals with lower sodium content by students, who are currently accustomed to eating foods with higher sodium content outside of school. This could negatively impact program participation and contribute to food waste.
We acknowledge that since 2012 schools have made significant efforts to reduce the sodium content of meals. We encourage families and communities to support schools' efforts by taking gradual steps to reduce the sodium content of meals offered to children outside of schools. Wholesome school meals are only a part of children's daily food intake, and children will be more likely to eat them if the foods available to them at home and in the community are also lower in sodium. Helping students adjust their taste preferences requires collaboration between schools, parents, and communities. As stated earlier, student, parent, and community involvement in menu planning is allowed at 7 CFR 210.12(a). The local school wellness policy at 7 CFR 210.31 also provides an important opportunity to influence the school nutrition environment at large.
State agencies whose school food authorities are close to meeting Target 2 may wish to continue their trajectory and implement Target 2 before the required timeline. As allowed in 7 CFR 210.19(e), State agencies have the ability to set stricter requirements that are not inconsistent with the minimum nutrition standards for school meals. USDA will continue to provide Program operators with technical assistance, training resources, and mentoring to help them offer the best possible meals. In addition, USDA Foods will continue to provide food products with no added salt and/or low sodium content for inclusion in school meals.
This final rule provides flexibility to address sodium challenges and sets a new timeline to build on the progress made. It is intended to address commenters' concerns regarding student acceptability and consumption of meals with lower sodium content, food service operational issues, food industry's reformulation and innovation challenges, and the important goal to safeguard the health of millions of school children. This final rule balances nutrition science, practical application of requirements, and the need to ensure that children receive wholesome and appealing meals.
Accordingly, this final rule will amend the following sodium provisions effective SY 2019-2020:
• NSLP (7 CFR 210.10(f)(3)); and
• SBP (7 CFR 220.8(f)).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final rule has been determined to be significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any one year). USDA does not anticipate that this final rule is likely to have an economic impact of $100 million or more in any one year, and therefore, does not meet the definition of “economically significant”
The Secretary of Agriculture acknowledged the operational challenges in meeting the meal standards related to flavored milk, whole grain-rich products, and sodium targets in the May 1, 2017, Proclamation and committed to working with stakeholders to ensure that school meal requirements are practical and result in wholesome and appealing meals. The interim final rule
This final rule makes specific modifications to the milk, grain, and sodium requirements beginning in SY 2019-2020. The purpose of this rule is to ease operational burden and provide school nutrition professionals the flexibility needed to successfully operate the Child Nutrition Programs. This final rule makes the following changes beginning in SY 2019-2020:
• Allow NSLP and SBP operators the option to offer flavored low-fat milk and require that unflavored milk be offered at each meal service. For consistency, the flavored milk flexibility will be extended to beverages for sale during the school day, and will also apply in the SMP and CACFP for participants ages 6 years and older. This flexibility will not apply to the Summer Food Service Program as flavored low-fat milk is already allowed in that Program.
• Require that at least half of the weekly grains offered in the NSLP and SBP be whole grain-rich.
• Retain Sodium Target 1 through the end of SY 2023-2024 and require compliance with Sodium Target 2 in SY 2024-2025, which begins July 1, 2024.
USDA expects the health benefits of the meal standards, which are mainly left intact, to be similar to the overall benefits of improving the diets of children cited in the RIA for the 2012 meal standards rule. While the changes in this final rule provide flexibilities to the 2012 regulations, the targeted nature of the three specific changes addresses persistent Program operator and stakeholder challenges with milk, grain, and sodium requirements. Program operators may exceed these minimum requirements and must continue to meet the same caloric and fat limits specified in the 2012 rule. The nation's students will continue to benefit from the suite of changes in the 2012 regulations and the health benefits qualitatively described in the 2012 RIA still apply.
As explained above, this final rule eases the operational challenges associated with these three requirements while balancing the nutrition science, as stated in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and the Program operator's ability to comply with the overall standards and the importance of ensuring children receive wholesome and appealing meals. These challenges were cited during a period of decreased meal consumption and Program participation, and some Program operators reported offering meals that did not appeal to children. The USDA Special Nutrition Program Operations Studies for SYs 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 suggested that, as with any major change, there were some challenges. During the initial years of implementation of the 2012 school meal regulations, nearly one third of SFAs reported challenges finding products to meet the updated nutrition standards. For example, food costs, student acceptance, and the availability of products meeting the standards were the primary challenges anticipated in implementing the whole grain-rich requirement in full.
USDA is committed to nutrition science but also understands the importance of practical requirements for Program operators to successfully operate the Child Nutrition Programs. The changes set forth in this rule still show progress in school meal nutrition, and children will continue to be offered and exposed to wholesome school meals to facilitate nutritious choices in the future. Further, we do not anticipate
Similar to the interim final rule, USDA anticipates minimal if any costs associated with the changes to the nutrition standards for milk, grains, and sodium. The overall meal components, macro nutrient, and calorie requirements for the lunch and breakfast programs remain unchanged, and it is the Program operators' option to use the milk flexibility or exceed the minimum whole grain-rich and sodium standards established in this final rule. These changes are also promulgated in the context of significant progress made to date by State and local operators, USDA, and food manufacturers to achieve healthy, appealing meals for students.
Local operators struggling with one or all of these requirements are expected to benefit from the more flexible nutrition standards and be better able to balance the service of wholesome meals with availability of current and future resources for preparing appealing meals. The added flexibility for the milk and grain requirements and the additional time to implement sodium Target 2 are expected to provide certainty for Program operators to effectively procure food to develop wholesome and appealing menus.
As stated in the interim final rule, there may be some cases in which flavored, low-fat milk is slightly more expensive and for some it might be slightly less expensive than the varieties currently permitted in the 2012 meal standards rule, but any overall difference in cost is likely to be minimal. The requirement that unflavored milk be offered at each school meal service is not expected to impact cost. Unflavored milk was a popular offering prior to the updated meal standards. In SY 2009-2010, the most commonly offered milks were unflavored, low-fat (73 percent of all daily NSLP menus) and flavored, low-fat (63 percent).Whole milk was offered in fewer than five percent of all daily menus.
The changes in this final rule provide Program operators the flexibility to offer some non-whole grain-rich products that are appealing to students without the administrative burden of the exemption process. The requirement that at least half of the weekly grains offered in NSLP and SBP be whole grain-rich may provide savings for some Program operators facing challenges procuring certain whole grain-rich products; however, we expect that as more products become available, any differential costs associated with whole grain-rich and non-whole grain-rich products will normalize in the market. The availability of whole grain-rich products through USDA Foods and the commercial market has increased significantly since the implementation of the 2012 meal standards and continues to progress, providing new and affordable options for local operators to integrate into menus. Finally, due to the wide variation in local adoption of this flexibility, any overall savings are likely minimal.
This final rule extends Sodium Target 1 through school year 2023-2024 and requires compliance with Sodium Target 2 in school year 2024-2025. This decision allows more time to develop products that meet the rule's standards and provides industry with the certainty needed to continue to develop new appealing products. This sodium reduction timeline allows for the opportunity for any potential impacts to the school meal programs from the updated DRI report and the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans to be considered. The extension of Target 1 and the resulting delay of the implementation of Target 2 to SY 2024-2025 provide adequate time to accommodate any potential changes, including regulatory adjustments to incorporate updated scientific recommendations. USDA recognizes the need for sodium reduction in school meals and is still retaining Target 2. USDA anticipates that Program operators will continue their efforts to reduce sodium in school meals while industry will continue to work towards lower sodium formulations. We do not anticipate any additional costs associated with this change as it allows additional time for Program operators and industry to reduce sodium levels in meals.
There were about 20 comment submissions that provided input on risks or benefits of the interim final rule. The American Public Health Association submitted a form letter representing 15 individuals who claimed the USDA underestimated the reduced health benefits. They expressed concern that the flexibilities could lower the estimated health benefits over time. They indicated that the Economic Summary does not provide a sufficiently thorough assessment of lost benefits and concluded that, in the final rule, USDA must calculate the reduced benefit to children for any changes it makes to the school nutrition standards related to sodium, whole grains, or flavored milk.
Similarly, the American Heart Association said USDA states in the interim final rule that the benefits would be similar as the original RIA conducted on the 2012 rule. They questioned how the impact could remain the same when children are served more sodium, fewer whole grain-rich foods, and milk with higher calories and saturated fat. They stated
The following sections review the changes and provide additional information regarding potential nutritional impacts.
In this final rule, USDA will allow NSLP and SBP operators the option to offer flavored, low-fat milk and require that unflavored milk be offered at each meal service. The flavored milk flexibility will be extended to beverages for sale during the school day, and will also apply in the SMP and CACFP for participants ages 6 years and older.
As noted in the interim final rule, the regulatory impact analyses for the final rule,
The interim final rule retains through SY 2018-2019 the State agency's discretion to grant whole grain-rich exemptions to school food authorities that demonstrate hardship. School food authorities receiving an exemption must offer at least half of the weekly grains as whole grain-rich.
Starting in SY 2019-2020, this final rule will require that at least half of the weekly grains offered in the NSLP and SBP meet the whole grain-rich criteria specified in FNS guidance, and the remaining grain items offered must be enriched. This decision was made to reduce Program operator burden while still providing children access to whole grain-rich items. The requirement to offer all whole grain-rich items was never fully implemented due to the exemption process, and about 20 percent of school food authorities still face challenges and apply for exemptions (over 4,000 school food authorities for SY 2017-2018).
The exemption process has been in place since the requirement for all grains to be whole grain-rich went into effect in SY 2014-2015. This exemption process placed a burden on Program operators and created uncertainty for stakeholders. As noted above, the majority of the exemption requests were for a few items and the process to apply for an exemption varied by State. Retaining the requirement that at least half the grains are whole grain-rich is a familiar requirement for Program operators as it was in place for two years before the requirement shifted to all grains offered be whole grain-rich. USDA believes that the requirement for half the grains to be whole grain-rich is to be viewed as a minimum amount and Program operators will likely continue to serve whole grain-rich items that have been successfully integrated into menus while allowing for the few items that are not as successful to still be offered.062
USDA does not anticipate Program operators will reduce the amount of whole grain-rich offerings if they already exceed the retained standard, although that is a possibility. Rather, USDA believes that this change will allow the time necessary for more palatable and widely available whole grain-rich items to continue to be integrated into menus. USDA does not have evidence that setting the whole grain-rich requirement to a percentage greater than half and less than all grains will successfully address Program operator concerns. Reinstating the requirement that half of grains must be whole grain-rich is familiar to Program operators and provides the flexibility for some Program operators to integrate palatable whole grain-rich items into their menus while still serving items that are appealing to the students.
USDA recognizes that re-implementing the whole grain-rich requirement in place from SY 2012-2013 through SY 2013-2014 will result in some offered grain items not transitioning to whole grain-rich, and that children may not receive some key nutrients associated with whole grain-rich items. However, this rule will retain the requirement that the grains that are not whole must be enriched.
As discussed above, the vast majority of schools are expected to meet the whole-grain-rich requirements in SY 2017-2018 and did not request exemptions, demonstrating that the majority of schools are moving toward meeting the whole grain-rich standard. This rule, by continuing to require that at least half of the offered grains items be whole grain-rich, will continue to ensure that children receive whole grain-rich products as part of their school meals. The specific flexibilities in this final rule will ease Program operator burden while ensuring the majority of the changes resulting from the 2012 regulation remain intact. There are select products that are difficult to prepare, procure, or do not appeal to students that make it challenging to meet the requirement that all weekly grains offered must be whole grain-rich. Industry has worked and continues to work diligently to increase the number of products reformulated to be whole grain-rich while still appealing to students. While this shows significant progress, the continued use of waivers and challenges faced by Program operators to serve all whole grain-rich items persisted. Moving back to the requirement that at least half of the grains offered be whole grain-rich provides the stability for Program operators to add slowly and successfully more whole grain-rich items into menus without undergoing a burdensome exemption process. The requirement for at least half of the grain offered to be whole grain rich is familiar to Program operators and USDA does not have any evidence that setting the standard at a higher percentage would successfully alleviate the challenges. Finally, this requirement is the minimum limit, providing Program operators the choice
USDA believes this change will allow more time for industry to develop appealing whole grain-rich items as well as provide more opportunities for training and technical assistance to better incorporate whole grain-rich items. Additionally, USDA Foods, which makes up about 15 to 20 percent of the food items offered on an average school day, continues to develop new whole grain-rich products each year.
Re-instating the requirement that at least half of the grains offered be whole grain-rich will provide Program operators the local control necessary to continue to serve items that meet local preferences while still exposing students to nutritious whole grain-rich products.
The interim final rule retained Sodium Target 1 in the NSLP and SBP through SY 2018-2019 (7 CFR 210.10(f)(3) and 7 CFR 220.8(f), respectively), and requested comments on the long-term availability of this flexibility. It also retained Target 2 and the final target as part of the sodium reduction timeline. This final rule will extend Target 1 through the end of SY 2023-2024, require compliance with Sodium Target 2 starting in SY 2024-2025, and eliminate the Final Target that would have gone into effect in SY 2022-2023. USDA is responding to the challenges associated with reducing the sodium level in school meals.
The impact of extending Sodium Target 1 through SY 2023-2024 increases the average daily sodium level permitted by about 55-70mg for breakfast and 300-340mg for lunch depending on the age/grade group compared to Sodium Target 2. Sodium Target 1 is about 90 to 93 percent of the daily upper intake level for both lunch and breakfast.
The average baseline sodium levels for school meals prior to the updated standards made up 98 percent to over 100 percent of the tolerable upper level of daily sodium intake. This extension of Target 1 and delay in Target 2 provides time for the DRI report and the 2020 Dietary Guidelines to be published, and for USDA to consider the updated information and potential impact on school meals. This timeline allows for any adjustments to be made, including regulatory changes, if needed, to incorporate any updated scientific information regarding sodium. USDA is retaining Target 2 recognizing the need for further sodium reduction beyond Target 1. The additional time also allows for Program operators to slowly introduce lower sodium foods to students and for industry to develop consistent lower sodium products that are palatable for students.
School children are consuming a considerable amount of sodium, and school meals contribute to their daily total. On average, most students consume 14 percent of their daily sodium intake at breakfast, 31 percent at lunch, 39 percent at dinner, and the remaining 16 percent through snacks. More than 9 in 10 U.S. school children eat more sodium than the age-specific Tolerable Upper Intake Level established by the Food and Nutrition Board, NASEM (over 130 to 150 percent of the daily recommended amount).
It is important that the sodium level in school meals is gradually reduced to assist in introducing children to lower sodium foods. Delaying the implementation of Sodium Target 1 provides the certainty for industry members to continue to develop and test lower sodium foods for both the school meal programs and the general public.
Sodium Target 2 makes up about 71 to 75 percent of total upper intake level. This continued reduction balances the need for strong nutrition standards with the operational concerns and student acceptance of school meals. The elimination of the Final Target will allow 55-70mg more sodium for breakfast and 300-340mg for lunch. The Final Target would have made up about 54 to 56 percent of the total upper intake level.
The extension of Target 1 and delay in Target 2 provide the additional time needed for USDA to assess the DRI report and the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which are scheduled for release at the end for 2020. Extending the Sodium Target 1 through SY 2023-2024 allows USDA to incorporate the latest scientific evidence into the school meal standards, including time needed for potential regulatory changes.
As noted earlier, we understand that there has been significant progress to date with sodium reduction in school meals. The additional time this rule provides will also enable Program operators to continue to progress, while allowing industry partners to continue to develop innovative solutions to lower sodium foods that can be served in the school meal programs.
An individual commenter said strict nutrition standards without reimbursement from the USDA impose high costs to feed children healthy
USDA believes that adding flexibility to the nutrition standards will allow Program operators additional time to work with available products to provide wholesome and appealing meals to students within available resources. This will help increase student consumption of meals and reduce waste and revenue loss. While the changes resulting from the 2012 regulations may not have resulted in long-term impacts for participation in some schools,
This final rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. It alleviates the milk, whole grain-rich, and sodium requirements in the Child Nutrition Program and provides flexibilities similar to those currently available as a result only of appropriations legislation in effect for SY 2017-2018 and administrative actions.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires Agencies to analyze the impact of rulemaking on small entities and consider alternatives that would minimize any significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities. Because this final rule adds flexibility to current Child Nutrition Program regulations, the changes implemented through this final rule are expected to benefit small entities operating meal programs under 7 CFR parts 210, 215, 220, and 226. The impacts are not expected to be significant.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Department generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Department to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This final rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and Tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
The NSLP, SMP, SBP, and the CACFP are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under NSLP No. 10.555, SMP No. 10.556, SBP No. 10.553, and CACFP No. 10.558, respectively, and are subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. Since the Child Nutrition Programs are State-administered, USDA's FNS Regional Offices have formal and informal discussions with State and local officials, including representatives of Indian Tribal Organizations, on an ongoing basis regarding program requirements and operations. This provides FNS with the opportunity to receive regular input from program administrators and contributes to the development of feasible program requirements.
Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments. Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories called for under Section (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132.
The Department has considered the impact of this final rule on State and local governments and has determined that this rule does not have federalism implications. Therefore, under section 6(b) of the Executive Order, a federalism summary is not required.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full and timely implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of the final rule, all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted.
FNS has reviewed this final rule in accordance with USDA Regulation 4300-4, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis,” to identify any major civil rights impacts the rule might have on program participants on the basis of age, race, color, national origin, sex, or disability. After a careful review of the rule's intent and provisions, FNS has determined that this rule is not expected to limit or reduce the ability of protected classes of individuals to participate in the NSLP, SMP, SBP, and CACFP or have a disproportionate adverse impact on the protected classes. The Civil Rights Impact Analysis is available for public inspection under the Supporting Documentation tab in docket FNS-2017-0021.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
FNS has assessed the impact of this final rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to the best of its knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, FNS will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; 5 CFR part 1320) requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve all collections of information by a Federal agency before they can be implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. The provisions of this final rule do not impose new information collection requirements subject to approval by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1994.
The Department 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.
Grant programs-education, Grant programs—health, Infants and children, Nutrition, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, School breakfast and lunch programs, Surplus agricultural commodities.
Food assistance programs, Grant programs—education, Grant program—health, Infants and children, Milk, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—education, Grant programs—health, Infants and children, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, School breakfast and lunch programs.
Accounting, Aged, Day care, Food assistance programs, Grant programs, Grant programs—health, American Indians, Individuals with disabilities, Infants and children, Intergovernmental relations, Loan programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surplus agricultural commodities.
Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 210, 215, 220, and 226 are amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 1751-1760, 1779.
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) * * *
(B)
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Schools must offer students a variety (at least two different options) of fluid milk. All milk must be fat-free (skim) or low-fat (1 percent fat or less). Milk with higher fat content is not allowed. Low-fat or fat-free lactose-free and reduced-lactose fluid milk may also be offered. Milk may be unflavored or flavored provided that unflavored milk is offered at each meal service.
(f) * * *
(3)
42 U.S.C. 1772 and 1779.
42 U.S.C. 1773, 1779, unless otherwise noted.
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) * * *
(B)
(d)
(f) * * *
(3)
Secs. 9, 11, 14, 16, and 17, Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1758, 1759a, 1762a, 1765 and 1766).
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(3) * * *
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Direct final rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Multipurpose Canister Cask System (HI-STORM 100 System) listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1014. Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 revise multiple items in the Technical Specifications for multi-purpose canister models listed under Certificate of Compliance No. 1014; most of these revisions involve changes to the authorized contents. In addition, Amendment No. 11 makes several other editorial changes.
This direct final rule is effective February 25, 2019, unless significant adverse comments are received by January 11, 2019. If this direct final rule is withdrawn as a result of such comments, timely notice of the withdrawal will be published in the
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
Yen-Ju Chen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; telephone: 301-415-1018; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0221 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-2018-0221 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.
This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment Nos. 11 and No. 12 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1014 and does not include other aspects of the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 System design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing Certificate of Compliance that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The amendments to the rule will become
A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, Certificate of Compliance, or Technical Specifications.
For detailed instructions on filing comments, please see the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rule section of this issue of the FR.
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”
To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule that added a new subpart K in part 72 of Title 10 of the
Holtec International submitted a request to the NRC to amend Certificate of Compliance No. 1014 in a letter dated January 29, 2016, and supplemented its request on February 16, 2016; June 6, 2016; December 22, 2016; April 22, 2016; September 8, 2017; November 10, 2017; and December 21, 2017. This revised Certificate of Compliance was denoted as Amendment No. 11 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1014. The revisions to Amendment No. 11 involve the following changes to the authorized contents:
1. Increase the per-storage location weight limit for cells authorized for damaged fuel containers in multipurpose canisters (MPCs) MPC-68, MPC-68FF, and MPC-68M in the HI-STORM 100 storage system.
2. Change surveillance requirements for casks with certain heat loads as specified in the Technical Specifications.
3. Allow the storage of higher average initial enrichment weight percent uranium (U)-235 fuel with low enriched Chalk River unidentified deposits-induced localized corrosion fuel.
4. Increase the enrichment limit for 10x10G boiling water reactor fuel assemblies from 4.6 weight percent U-235 to 4.75 weight percent U-235.
5. Change the minimum soluble boron concentration limits for the 17x17A pressurized water reactor fuel assemblies in MPC-32.
6. Increase the burnup limit to accommodate non-fuel hardware consisting of neutron source assemblies in combination with other control components.
7. Add thoria rods/canister as contents for the MPC-68M.
8. Add a second permissible composition for thoria rods for all MPC-68 models. The new thoria rod composition is made of 98.5 weight percent thorium dioxide and 1.5 weight percent uranium oxide. The maximum enrichment of U-235 in uranium oxide is 93.5 weight percent.
Amendment No. 11 also makes the following editorial changes:
1. Clarify heat load limits and drying methods in Appendix A, Table 3-1.
2. Include NUREG-0612, “Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants: Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-36.” as a basis for stress limits.
3. Remove manufacturer's tolerance in Appendix B, Tables 2.1-2 and 2.1-3.
4. Clarify dose evaluation for stainless steel replacement and dummy rods in Appendix B, Tables 2.1-2 and 2.1-3.
Holtec International submitted another request to the NRC to amend Certificate of Compliance No. 1014 in a letter dated June 14, 2016, and supplemented its request on July 22, 2016; November 4, 2016; August 25, 2017; November 10, 2017; and December 22, 2017. This revised Certificate of Compliance was denoted as Amendment No. 12 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1014. The revisions to Amendment No. 12 involve the following changes to the authorized contents:
1. Add a new regionalized quarter-symmetric heat load pattern for MPC-68M and allow fuel that has been cooled for at least 2 years to be stored in the MPC-68M.
2. Allow the storage of damaged fuel and fuel debris in damaged fuel containers under the new regionalized quarter-symmetric heat load pattern.
3. Add a new duplex stainless steel as an allowed material for the MPC confinement boundary in the HI-STORM 100 system.
4. Add cyclic vacuum drying for all MPCs.
5. Update coefficients for burnup calculation equations for fuel assemblies with cooling time of 2 through 40 years.
As documented in the Preliminary Safety Evaluation Reports for Amendment Nos. 11 and 12, the NRC performed detailed safety evaluations of the Certificate of Compliance amendment requests. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the Certificate of
This direct final rule revises the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 System listing in § 72.214 by adding Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1014. The amendments consist of the changes previously described, as set forth in the revised Certificate of Compliance and Technical Specifications. The revised technical specifications are identified in the preliminary safety evaluation report.
The amended Holtec International HI-STORM 100 cask design, when used under the conditions specified in the Certificate of Compliance, the Technical Specifications, and NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under § 72.210 may, consistent with the license conditions under § 72.212, load spent nuclear fuel into Holtec International HI-STORM 100 System casks that meet the criteria of Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1014.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC will revise the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 System design listed in § 72.214. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.
Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).
The action is to amend § 72.214 to revise the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1014. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that this direct final rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has made a finding of no significant impact on the basis of this environmental assessment.
This direct final rule amends the Certificate of Compliance for the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. Specifically, Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 update the Certificate of Compliance as described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document, for the use of the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 System.
On July 18,1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was initially analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessments for Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 tier off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
The Holtec International HI-STORM 100 System is designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an independent spent fuel storage installation, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.
Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of confinement, shielding, and criticality control in the event of an accident. If there is no loss of confinement, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts resulting from an accident would be insignificant. These amendments do not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask.
There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the Certificate of Compliance amendments. In addition, because there are no significant design or process changes, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Therefore, the
The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 and end the direct final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into a Holtec International HI-STORM 100 System cask in accordance with the changes described in Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 would have to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. Therefore, the environmental impacts would be the same or less than the proposed action.
Approval of Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1014 would result in no irreversible commitment of resources.
No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.
The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule entitled, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: HOLTEC International HI-STORM 100 Multipurpose Canister Cask System,” will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.
This direct final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this direct final rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and Holtec International. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (§ 2.810).
On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's Certificate of Compliance, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in § 72.214. On May 1, 2000 (65 FR 25241), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 System design by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214.
On January 29, 2016, (supplemented on February 16, 2016; June 6, 2016; December 22, 2016; April 22, 2016; September 8, 2017; November 10, 2017; and December 21, 2017) and June 14, 2016, (supplemented on July 22, 2016; November 4, 2016; August 25, 2017; November 10, 2017; and December 22, 2017, Holtec International submitted applications to amend the HI-STORM 100 System as described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document.
The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into a Holtec International HI-STORM 100 System cask under the changes described in Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.
Approval of this direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the preliminary safety evaluation reports and environmental assessment, this direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of this direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and therefore, this action is recommended.
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (§ 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. This direct final rule revises Certificate of Compliance No. 1014 for the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 System, as currently listed in § 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” The revision consists of adding Amendment Nos. 11 and 12, which revise the Certificate of Compliance's Technical Specifications as described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document.
Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1014 for the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 System were initiated by Holtec International and were not submitted in response to new NRC requirements, or an NRC request for amendment. Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 apply only to new casks fabricated and used under Amendment Nos. 11 and 12. These changes do not affect existing users of the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 System, and the current Amendment
For these reasons, Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1014 do not constitute backfitting under § 72.62 or § 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, the NRC has not prepared a backfit analysis for this rulemaking.
This direct final rule is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking website at
Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear energy, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
Certificate Number: 1014.
Initial Certificate Effective Date: May 31, 2000.
Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: July 15, 2002.
Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: June 7, 2005.
Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: May 29, 2007.
Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: January 8, 2008.
Amendment Number 5 Effective Date: July 14, 2008.
Amendment Number 6 Effective Date: August 17, 2009.
Amendment Number 7 Effective Date: December 28, 2009.
Amendment Number 8 Effective Date: May 2, 2012, as corrected on November 16, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12213A170); superseded by Amendment Number 8, Revision 1, Effective Date: February 16, 2016.
Amendment Number 8, Revision 1, Effective Date: February 16, 2016.
Amendment Number 9 Effective Date: March 11, 2014, superseded by Amendment Number 9, Revision 1, on March 21, 2016.
Amendment Number 9, Revision 1, Effective Date: March 21, 2016, as corrected (ADAMS Accession No. ML17236A451).
Amendment Number 10 Effective Date: May 31, 2016, as corrected (ADAMS Accession No. ML17236A452).
Amendment Number 11 Effective Date: February 25, 2019.
Amendment Number 12 Effective Date: February 25, 2019.
Safety Analysis Report Submitted by: Holtec International.
Safety Anaylsis Report Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the HI-STORM 100 Cask System.
Docket Number: 72-1014.
Certificate Expiration Date: May 31, 2020.
Model Number: HI-STORM 100.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, and A330-300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of dual flight management system (FMS) resets with the loss of flight plan (F-PLN) data. This AD requires revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to prohibit required navigation performance-authorization required (RNP-AR) operations using flight management guidance envelope computer (FMGEC) standard P5H3. This AD would also require modifying the FMS software of airplanes equipped with FMGEC standard P5H3. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 16, 2019.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 16, 2019.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3229.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, and A330-300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address dual FMS reset and loss of F-PLN data, which in the context of RNP-AR operations of the airplane could result in significantly reduced situational awareness of proximity to terrain and/or other aircraft to below acceptable safety margins, and out of the context of RNP-AR operations could lead to an unusually high pilot workload.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0233, dated November 23, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200, Model A330-200 Freighter, and Model A330-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
Operators of [Airbus SAS Model] A330 aeroplanes fitted with a Flight Management Guidance Envelope Computer (FMGEC) standard P5H3 have reported some occurrences of dual Flight Management System (FMS) reset with the loss of Flight Plan (F-PLN) data. These events have been identified in all flight phases, including Take-Off transition.
This condition, if not corrected, particularly in the context of Required Navigation Performance—Authorization Required (RNP-AR) operations of the aeroplane, could lead to a large reduction in safety margins due to terrain and/or surrounded traffic proximity [below acceptable safety margins], and out of the context of RNP-AR operations could lead to an increased pilot workload.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) Temporary Revision (TR) 774 issue 1 [approved October 13, 2017, to the Airbus A330/A340 Airplane Flight Manual] to provide instructions to prohibit RNP-AR operations. In addition, Airbus developed modification (mod) 207362 to allow FMS software downgrading from P5 to P4A standard, and issued [Airbus SAS] Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) A22L002-17 providing instructions to implement that mod on in-service aeroplanes. As a long term action, Airbus intend to publish Service Bulletin (SB) A330-22-3264, which will supersede AOT A22L002-17 [dated October 20, 2017], to provide the same instructions for FMS software downgrade.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires amendment of the applicable AFM and operating the aeroplane accordingly, and requires FMS software downgrading of aeroplanes with FMGEC standard P5H3.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) stated its support for the NPRM.
Delta Air Lines (DAL) requested that we revise the applicability of the proposed AD to state that the AD is not effective for airplanes that have a Thales FMS installed. DAL justified the request by stating that the applicability of the proposed AD was too general, and removing airplanes with a Thales FMS installed from the applicability would not result in a decrease in safety, because the action is intended only for airplanes with a Honeywell FMS installed.
We disagree with DAL's request because FMGEC standard P5H3 can be embodied in production or in service on both Thales and Honeywell FMS. Further, this AD requires modification of Groups 1 and 2 airplanes in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330-22-3264, dated March 14, 2018, which requires prior or simultaneous accomplishment of prerequisite Airbus SAS service information applicable to airplanes with a Honeywell FMS, Release 2, or a Thales flight guidance card. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
ALPA suggested that a temporary downgrade of the FMS software from P5H3 standard to P4A standard is a short-term fix, and recommended that a new software standard be developed. ALPA contends that the new software standard should eliminate the potential of dual FMS resets, which could lead to loss of flight plan data, while incorporating the features of the advanced P5H3 standard.
We disagree with ALPA's request. The unsafe condition of dual FMS resets, which could lead to loss of flight plan data, was introduced by the FMS software P5H3 standard. The unsafe condition is eliminated by downgrading the FMS software to P4A standard, which is a permanent repair. The FAA acknowledges ALPA's recommendation, and we might consider further rulemaking on this issue if Airbus proposes new software. We have not changed the AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Airbus SAS has issued Service Bulletin A330-22-3264, dated March 14, 2018. This service information describes procedures to downgrade the FMS from P5 to P4A operational software on FMGEC standard P5H3, by embodying Modification 207362S34542 on the affected airplanes.
Airbus SAS has issued A330/A340 AFM Temporary Revision TR774, RNP AR Operations Forbidden with FMGEC Standard P5H3, Issue 1, dated October 16, 2017, to the Airbus A330/A340 AFM. This service information describes the operational restrictions for
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
The Airbus A330/A340 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) for the aircraft affected by this AD is required to be furnished with the aircraft, in accordance with 14 CFR 25.1581. Further, operators of the aircraft affected by this AD must operate in accordance with the limitations specified in the AFM, in accordance with 14 CFR 91.9.
We estimate that this AD affects 3 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective January 16, 2019.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A330-201, A330-202, A330-203, A330-223, A330-223F, A330-243, A330-243F, A330-301, A330-302, A330-303, A330-321, A330-322, A330-323, A330-341, A330-342, and A330-343 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 22, Auto flight.
This AD was prompted by reports of dual flight management system (FMS) resets with the loss of flight plan (F-PLN) data. We are issuing this AD to address dual FMS reset and loss of F-PLN data, which in the context of required navigation performance-authorization required (RNP-AR) operations of the airplane could result in significantly reduced situational awareness of proximity to terrain and/or other aircraft to below acceptable safety margins, and out of the context of RNP-AR operations could lead to an unusually high pilot workload.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purposes of this AD, the definitions in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this AD apply.
(1) Group 1 airplanes are those that have flight management guidance envelope computer (FMGEC) standard P5H3 (Airbus SAS Modification 204758 Part Number (P/N) FMGEC C13226HA07 with P/N FMS operational SW PS4087700-906) embodied in production, or embodied in service as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-22-3209; Airbus Service Bulletin A330-22-3225; Airbus Service Bulletin A330-22-3244; Airbus Service Bulletin A330-22-3247; or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-22-3262; except those that have RNP-AR.
(2) Group 2 airplanes have the same configuration as those in Group 1, but in addition have RNP-AR (Airbus SAS Modification 203441, or Airbus SAS Modification 203442, or Airbus SAS Modification 200624) embodied in production or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3262; Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-
(3) Group 3 airplanes are those in any configuration other than that identified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD and optional actions specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Alert Operators Transmission-AOT A22L002-17, dated October 20, 2017.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0233, dated November 23, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3229.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-22-3264, dated March 14, 2018.
(ii) Airbus A330/A340 Airplane Flight Manual Temporary Revision TR774, RNP AR Operations Forbidden with FMGEC Standard P5H3, Issue 1, dated October 16, 2017.
(3) For Airbus SAS service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
This rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans by substituting a new table for determining expected retirement ages for participants in pension plans undergoing distress or involuntary termination with valuation dates falling in 2019. This table is needed to compute the value of early retirement benefits and, thus, the total value of benefits under a plan.
This rule is effective January 1, 2019.
Hilary Duke (
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) administers the pension plan termination insurance program under title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) sets forth (in subpart B) the methods for valuing plan benefits of terminating single-employer plans covered under title IV. Guaranteed benefits and benefit liabilities under a plan that is undergoing a distress termination must be valued in accordance with subpart B of part 4044. In addition, when PBGC terminates an underfunded plan involuntarily pursuant to ERISA section 4042(a), it uses the subpart B valuation rules to determine the amount of the plan's underfunding.
Under § 4044.51(b) of the asset allocation regulation, early retirement benefits are valued based on the annuity starting date, if a retirement date has been selected, or the expected retirement age, if the annuity starting date is not known on the valuation date. Sections 4044.55 through 4044.57 set forth rules for determining the expected retirement ages for plan participants entitled to early retirement benefits. Appendix D of part 4044 contains tables to be used in determining the expected early retirement ages.
Table I in appendix D (Selection of Retirement Rate Category) is used to determine whether a participant has a low, medium, or high probability of retiring early. The determination is based on the year a participant would reach “unreduced retirement age” (
Tables II-A, II-B, and II-C (Expected Retirement Ages for Individuals in the Low, Medium, and High Categories respectively) are used to determine the expected retirement age after the probability of early retirement has been determined using Table I. These tables establish, by probability category, the expected retirement age based on both the earliest age a participant could retire under the plan and the unreduced retirement age. This expected retirement age is used to compute the value of the early retirement benefit and, thus, the total value of benefits under the plan.
This document amends appendix D to replace Table I-18 with Table I-19 to provide an updated correlation, appropriate for calendar year 2019, between the amount of a participant's benefit and the probability that the participant will elect early retirement. Table I-19 will be used to value benefits in plans with valuation dates during calendar year 2019.
PBGC has determined that notice of, and public comment on, this rule are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Plan administrators need to be able to estimate accurately the value of plan benefits as early as possible before initiating the termination process. For that purpose, if a plan has a valuation date in 2019, the plan administrator needs the updated table being promulgated in this rule. Accordingly, PBGC finds that the public interest is best served by issuing this table expeditiously, without an opportunity for notice and comment, and that good cause exists for making the table set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication to allow as much time as possible to estimate the value of plan benefits with the proper table for plans with valuation dates in early 2019.
PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13771.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this regulation, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply (5 U.S.C. 601(2)).
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance.
In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4044 is amended as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a 1000-yard temporary moving safety zone around the Falcon 9 rocket in the Atlantic Ocean, in the vicinity of Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape Canaveral, FL. This safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the public from potential hazards associated with the control and removal of the rocket and any debris from navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean. All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from December 12, 2018 through December 28, 2018. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from December 5, 2018 through December 12, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Rory Boyle, Sector Jacksonville, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (904) 714-7661, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. On December 5, 2018, the Coast Guard determined that immediate action was necessary to protect life and property from the hazards associated with control and removal of a Falcon 9 rocket and any associated debris located in the Atlantic Ocean. Due to the emergent nature and increased safety risks associated with control and removal operations for the rocket, there is insufficient time to publish an NPRM and to receive public comments before the rulemaking is required. The regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of persons and vessels within a 1000-yard radius of the Falcon 9 rocket. For those reasons, it would be impracticable to publish an NPRM.
For the reasons discussed above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Jacksonville (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with control and removal operations for the Falcon 9 rocket will be a safety concern for persons and vessels within a 1000-yard radius of the rocket. The purpose of this rule is to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during control and removal operations associated with the Falcon 9 rocket.
This rule establishes a safety zone that will encompass all navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean within a 1000-yard radius of a Falcon 9 rocket located at position 28°24.3 N 080°30.8 W, in the vicinity of Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape Canaveral, Florida. The safety zone will be enforced during control, movement, and removal operations associated with the Falcon 9 rocket from 7 p.m. on December 5, 2018 until 11:59 p.m. on December 28, 2018, unless sooner terminated by the COTP Jacksonville upon completion of the removal operations. The duration of the safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with rocket and debris movement control and removal operations. These operations include the use of towing vessels, divers and support vessels. There will be occasions during the operations when there will be divers in the water and the waterway will be obstructed by the associated vessels and equipment. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone unless authorized by the COTP Jacksonville or designated representative. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone granted by the COTP Jacksonville or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must transit at a minimum safe speed and must comply with the orders of the COTP Jacksonville or designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice and status of the safety zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners or on-scene designated representatives.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day. Although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the COTP Jacksonville or a designated representative, vessel traffic will be able to safely operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement. Additionally, any persons or vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain with the safety zone from the COTP Jacksonville or a designated representative. Moreover, the Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on “small entities” comprised of small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit entry within navigable waters outlined in the Discussion of the Rule above. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of the DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Jacksonville by telephone at (904) 714-7557, or a designated representative via VHF-FM radio channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization is granted by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will issue notice of the safety zone to the local maritime community via Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 or by on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; lifting of stay.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) adopts a rule that prohibits the certification, and after a six-month transition period, the manufacture, importation, or sale of 121.5 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs), but declines to prohibit the use of 121.5 MHz ELTs. By accelerating the transition from 121.5 MHz ELTs to 406 MHz ELTs, this rule change will enhance the ability of search and rescue personnel to locate and bring aid to the victims of plane crashes.
The rule is effective January 11, 2019. The stay of § 87.195 is lifted effective January 11, 2019.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington DC 20554.
Jeffrey Tobias,
This is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission's
1. Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs) are radio beacons that are carried on board aircraft and triggered in the event of a crash or other unplanned downing. The Commission authorizes these devices to serve as an effective locating aid for survival purposes. For years, the ELTs operated only at 121.5 MHz, with their transmissions monitored by an international satellite-based system (the Cospas-Sarsat system) that could determine their location over most of the world's major air and sea travel paths. By 2010, however, the Cospas-Sarsat system limited tracking of ELTs to a newer type operating primarily at 406 MHz, thus eroding the utility of the 121.5 MHz ELTs as an effective locating aid. By accelerating the transition to 406 MHz ELTs with the rule changes we adopt in this
2. Section 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), states that the Commission, “[i]n taking actions to manage the spectrum to be made available for use by the private mobile services . . . shall consider . . . whether such actions will . . . promote the safety of life and property; [or] (2) improve the efficiency of spectrum use and reduce the regulatory burden upon spectrum users, based upon sound engineering principles, user operational requirements, and marketplace demands . . . .” Section 303 of the Act further requires the Commission, pursuant to its licensing authority, to “prescribe the nature of the service to be rendered by each class of licensed stations and each station within any class.” In concert with these direct statutory mandates, the Commission has an obligation to advance the goal “of obtaining maximum effectiveness from the use of radio and wire communications in connection with safety of life and property.”
3. In furtherance of these statutory responsibilities, the Commission authorizes and regulates three types of satellite emergency radiobeacons: Emergency Position-Indicating Radiobeacons (EPIRBs),
4. The two types of ELT now in service are the 406 MHz ELT and the 121.5 MHz ELT.
5. As technology continues to evolve, the Commission must periodically reevaluate and, to the extent necessary, modify the requirements for services it regulates. Developments in the satellite monitoring framework used by EPIRBs and ELTs have undermined their reliance on 121.5 MHz as the key frequency that enables them to effectively perform the public safety functions for which they were authorized. More specifically, the Cospas-Sarsat satellite system
6. Because of these developments, the Commission in 2002 modified the rules governing EPIRBs to phase out use of EPIRBs designed to transmit distress alerts on the 121.5 MHz frequency (121.5 MHz EPIRBs); certification of 121.5 MHz EPIRBs ceased immediately, sale and manufacture of 121.5 MHz EPIRBs was prohibited as of 2003, and use of 121.5 MHz EPIRBs was prohibited effective December 31, 2006.
7. The Commission in 2006 requested comment on actions it should take with regard to 121.5 MHz ELTs in light of the scheduled termination of Cospas-Sarsat monitoring of 121.5 MHz. Commenters generally supported a phase-out of 121.5 MHz ELTs.
8. In 2010, after Cospas-Sarsat stopped monitoring 121.5 MHz, the Commission amended § 87.195 of the rules in the
9. In the 2013
10. In addition, the Commission requested information on matters that had not been fully addressed by commenters prior to adoption of the
11. In this
12.
13.
14. The record demonstrates that 121.5 MHz ELTs were clearly inferior to 406 MHz ELTs due to interference and other concerns even prior to the termination of satellite monitoring of 121.5 MHz,
15. Although it appears that most GA aircraft owners and pilots are aware that satellite monitoring of 121.5 MHz ELTs has ceased,
16. Commenters opposed to prohibiting the manufacture, importation, and sale of 121.5 MHz ELTs argue that such action will impose costs that outweigh the benefits. Some commenters argue that the benefits of phasing out 121.5 MHz ELTs in favor of 406 MHz ELTs have been overstated because 121.5 MHz ELTs' continued safety benefits have not been fully recognized.
17. There is no evidence, moreover that the costs to ELT manufacturers and distributors would be substantial, for manufacturers indicate that they would not be burdened with stranded
18. The Aviation Suppliers Association (ASA) does not dispute that existing inventories can be depleted quickly, but argues that prohibiting the sale of 121.5 MHz ELTs would work an unconstitutional taking of property under the Fifth Amendment by rendering distributors' inventory of 121.5 MHz ELTs worthless. The Supreme Court has established a three-part test for determining whether a regulatory taking has occurred, in which a court will consider (1) the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant, (2) the extent to which the regulation interferes with the claimant's investment-backed expectations, and (3) the character of the government regulation or action. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that these criteria have been met. Moreover, ASA does not cite, and we are otherwise are not aware of, any authority for the proposition that prohibiting the sale of legacy devices, particularly following a transition period, constitutes a Fifth Amendment regulatory taking. Phasing in prohibitions such as the ones adopted herein is a common and necessary approach where the Commission has determined that ongoing use of legacy devices will be incompatible with changes in spectrum use mandated by the public interest, and operates to mitigate the “economic impact” of the governmental regulatory action.
19. It also does not appear that removing 121.5 MHz ELTs from the marketplace will impose significant costs on users in terms of a future price differential between 406 MHz ELTs and 121.5 MHz ELTs. The only responsive data to the Commission's request for “specific data on the costs of purchasing and installing a 406 MHz ELT” suggests that the price differential between 406 MHz ELTs and 121.5 MHz ELTs has decreased significantly in the last few years, and will decrease further: In 2010, the FAA estimated the average cost of a 406 MHz ELT to be more than $2,500, but comments submitted in 2013 indicate that the price had already dropped to less than half of that.
20. Nor do we agree that prohibiting the manufacture, importation, and sale of 121.5 MHz ELTs is unnecessary because a transition to 406 MHz ELTs will occur naturally over time without Commission intervention. That a migration would occur eventually does not justify inaction, when the modest action that we are taking here should expedite the changes to the nature of this service that we have determined, pursuant to section 303(b), will maximize the efficient use of spectrum and best serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Similarly, in considering whether this action in managing the spectrum will promote the safety of life and property, as required by section 332(a), we find that it would disserve the public interest to take a slower path than the one we have chosen here. Moreover, for the reasons discussed below, we have determined that imposing a direct ban on licensee use of 121.5 MHz ELTs would be unlikely to produce a substantially quicker transition to 406 MHz ELT use. Accordingly, we impose this phased-in prohibition on the manufacture, importation, and sale of 121.5 ELTs to fulfill our statutory responsibilities effectively.
21. Commenters who favor prohibiting the manufacture, importation, and sale of 121.5 MHz ELTs support a transition period of one year (as proposed in the 3rd FNPRM) or less. We believe that, at this juncture, a six-month transition period strikes a reasonable compromise in accelerating the removal of 121.5 MHz ELTs from the stream of commerce while avoiding undue hardship to manufacturers, importers, vendors, and users of the devices. Manufacturers, importers, vendors, and users have been on notice for many years that 121.5 MHz ELTs would have a diminishing role in avionics, and it appears that there is currently very little manufacturing or sales activity involving 121.5 MHz ELTs. We therefore amend § 87.195 of our rules to prohibit the manufacture, importation, or sale of 121.5 MHz ELTs, beginning six months from the effective date of this Fourth Report and Order.
22.
23. Those who oppose a prohibition on the use of 121.5 MHz ELTs, even if accomplished gradually and with grandfathering protections, argue that it would impose costs on the GA community that outweigh the benefits; that it is unnecessary because a transition to exclusive use of 406 MHz ELTs will occur naturally over time; and that requiring users of 121.5 MHz ELTs to upgrade to 406 MHz ELTs by a specified deadline would foreclose them from investing in other equipment and measures that would better promote aviation safety. While these are generally the same arguments that these parties raise against prohibiting the manufacture, importation, and sale of 121.5 MHz ELTs, the record indicates that these parties' greatest concern is with prohibiting the use of 121.5 MHz ELTs, and that they are most strongly opposed to the adoption of a rule that might require GA aircraft owners to replace 121.5 MHz ELTs before the end
24. Commenters also contend that the statutory provision requiring most fixed-wing powered civil aircraft to carry an ELT—section 44712 of Title 49 of the United States Code, which provides that an “aircraft meets the [ELT carriage] requirement . . . if it is equipped with an emergency locator transmitter that transmits on the 121.5/243 megahertz frequency or the 406 megahertz frequency or with other equipment approved by the Secretary for meeting the requirement”—forecloses the Commission from prohibiting use of 121.5 MHz ELTs.
25. We decline to prohibit the use of 121.5 MHz ELTs at this time.
26. Finally, as proposed in the
27. Procedural Matters.
28. The rules adopted in the
29. Commenters argued that that the IRFA was deficient because it did not provide an adequate costs/benefits analysis of prohibiting the continued use of 121.5 MHz ELTs, by understating the safety benefits of 121.5 MHz ELTs even after the cessation of satellite monitoring of 121.5 MHz, overstating the safety benefits of 406 MHz ELTs, and failing to fully recognize the compliance costs to general aviation aircraft owners and pilots of having to swap out a 121.5 MHz ELT for a 406 MHz ELT before the end of the useful life of the former. In the
30. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
31. Small businesses in the aviation and marine radio services use a marine very high frequency (VHF), medium frequency (MF), or high frequency (HF) radio, any type of emergency position indicating radio beacon (EPIRB) and/or radar, an aircraft radio, and/or any type of emergency locator transmitter (ELT). The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to these small businesses. For purposes of this analysis, therefore, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category “Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
32. Some of the rules adopted herein may also affect small businesses that manufacture aviation radio equipment. The Census Bureau does not have a category specific to aviation radio equipment manufacturers. The appropriate category is that for wireless communications equipment manufacturers. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: All such firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census bureau data for 2012, there were a total of 841 firms in this category that operated that year. Of this total, 828 had fewer than 1,000 employees and 13 had 1,000 or more employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
33. The rule changes adopted in the
34. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in developing its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”
35. We believe that the decision in the
36. To minimize the economic impact on small entities of the decision in the
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
Aviation communications, Equipment.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 87 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303 and 307(e), unless otherwise noted.
(b) ELTs manufactured after October 1, 1988, must meet the output power characteristics contained in § 87.141(i). A report of the measurements must be submitted with each application for certification. ELTs that meet the output power characteristics of the section must have a permanent label prominently displayed on the outer casing state, “Meets FCC Rule for improved satellite detection.” This label, however, must not be placed on the equipment without authorization to do so by the Commission. Application for such authorization may be made either by submission of a new application for certification accompanied by the required fee and all information and test data required by parts 2 and 87 of this chapter or, for ELTs approved prior to October 1, 1988, a letter requesting such authorization, including appropriate test data and a showing that all units produced under the original equipment authorization comply with the requirements of this paragraph without change to the original circuitry.
ELTs that operate only on frequency 121.5 MHz will no longer be certified. The manufacture, importation, and sale of ELTs that operate only on frequency 121.5 MHz is prohibited beginning July 10, 2019. Existing ELTs that operate only on frequency 121.5 MHz must be operated as certified.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of calendar year 2019 random drug and alcohol testing rates.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is increasing the minimum random drug testing rate from 25 percent to 50 percent in calendar year 2019 for employers subject to the FTA's drug and alcohol rule. The minimum random alcohol testing rate will remain at 10 percent for calendar year 2019.
Effective: January 1, 2019.
Iyon Rosario, Drug and Alcohol Program Manager for the Office of Transit Safety and Oversight, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-366-2010 or email:
On January 1, 1995, the FTA required large transit employers to begin drug and alcohol testing of employees performing safety-sensitive functions, and submit annual reports by March 15 of each year beginning in 1996. Small employers commenced their FTA-required testing on January 1, 1996, and began reporting the same information as the large employers starting on March 15, 1997. The rule initially required employers to conduct random drug tests for prohibited drug use at a rate equivalent to at least 50 percent of their total number of safety-sensitive employees and for misuse of alcohol at a rate of at least 25 percent of their total number of safety-sensitive employees.
The FTA updated the testing rules on August 1, 2001, and maintained a minimum random testing rate for prohibited drugs at 50 percent and the misuse of alcohol at 10 percent. However, pursuant to 49 CFR 655.45(c) and (d), both random testing rates could be adjusted based on industry-reported violations that have been verified over two preceding consecutive calendar years. Accordingly, the FTA in 2007 reduced the minimum random drug testing rate from 50 percent to 25 percent, where it has remained since then.
Pursuant to 49 CFR 655.45(c), the FTA will increase the minimum random drug testing rate from 25 percent back to 50 percent if the industry-reported data for any one calendar year indicates that the positive rate equals or exceeds one percent (positive rate means the number of verified positive results for random drug tests conducted under 49 CFR 655.45 plus the number of refusals of random tests, divided by the total number of random drug test results (
Pursuant to 49 CFR 655.45(b), the FTA's decision to increase or decrease the minimum annual percentage rates for random drug and alcohol testing is based, in part, on the reported verified positive drug rate and alcohol violation rate for the entire public transportation industry. The information used for this determination is drawn from the Drug and Alcohol Management Information System (MIS) reports required by 49 CFR 655.72. In determining the reliability of the data, the FTA considers the quality and completeness of the reported data, or may obtain additional information or reports from employers, and make appropriate modifications in calculating the industry's verified drug positive rate and alcohol violation rates.
For calendar year 2019, the FTA has determined that the minimum random drug testing rate for covered employees will increase from 25 percent to 50 percent based on a verified positive rate that exceeded 1.0 percent for random drug test data for calendar year 2017. The random drug testing positive rate for 2017 was 1.06 percent. Further, for calendar year 2019, the FTA has determined that the random alcohol testing rate for covered employees will
Detailed reports on the FTA drug and alcohol testing data collected from transit employers may be obtained from the FTA's Office of Transit Safety and Oversight, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-2010 or at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for the red grouper recreational sector in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic for the 2018 fishing year through this temporary rule. NMFS estimates recreational landings of red grouper in 2018 have exceeded the recreational annual catch limit (ACL). Therefore, NMFS closes the red grouper recreational sector in the South Atlantic EEZ at 12:01 a.m., local time, on December 12, 2018 for the remainder of the 2018 fishing year. This closure is necessary to protect the red grouper resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, December 12, 2018, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2019.
Frank Helies, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes red grouper and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
On July 26, 2018, as a result of the determination that red grouper was undergoing overfishing, NMFS published the final rule for Abbreviated Framework 1 to the FMP in the
NMFS notes that while the 2019 fishing year begins on January 1, as described at § 622.183(b)(1), the commercial and recreational harvest of red grouper is prohibited annually from January through April of each year. Therefore, the recreational sector for red grouper will reopen on May 1, 2019, the beginning of the recreational fishing season. The recreational ACL for 2019 is 84,000 lb (38,102 kg), whole weight, as described at § 622.193(d)(2)(ii).
The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic red grouper and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(d)(2)(i) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The AA finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the recreational sector for red grouper constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the AMs implementing the recreational closure have already been subject to notice and comment. All that remains is to notify the public of the recreational closure for red grouper for the remainder of the 2018 fishing year. Prior notice and opportunity for comment are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect the red grouper resource. Time required for notice and public comment would allow for continued recreational harvest and further exceedance of the recreational ACL.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Multipurpose Canister Cask System (HI-STORM 100 System) listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1014. Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 propose to revise multiple items in the Technical Specifications for multi-purpose canister models listed under Certificate of Compliance No. 1014; most of these revisions involve changes to the authorized contents. In addition, Amendment No. 11 makes several other editorial changes.
Submit comments by January 11, 2019. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC 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
Yen-Ju Chen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; telephone: 301-415-1018; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0221 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-2018-0221 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.
This proposed rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 to Certificate of Compliance 1014 and does not include other aspects of the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 System design. Because the NRC considers this action to be non-controversial, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently with a direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule.
For procedural information and the regulatory analysis, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the FR.
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”
To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule that added a new subpart K in part 72 of Title 10 of the
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). The NRC requests comment on the proposed rule with respect to clarity and effectiveness of the language used.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking website at
Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear energy, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
Certificate Number: 1014.
Initial Certificate Effective Date: May 31, 2000.
Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: July 15, 2002.
Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: June 7, 2005.
Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: May 29, 2007.
Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: January 8, 2008.
Amendment Number 5 Effective Date: July 14, 2008.
Amendment Number 6 Effective Date: August 17, 2009.
Amendment Number 7 Effective Date: December 28, 2009.
Amendment Number 8 Effective Date: May 2, 2012, as corrected on November 16, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12213A170); superseded by Amendment Number 8, Revision 1, Effective Date: February 16, 2016.
Amendment Number 8, Revision 1, Effective Date: February 16, 2016.
Amendment Number 9 Effective Date: March 11, 2014, superseded by Amendment Number 9, Revision 1, on March 21, 2016.
Amendment Number 9, Revision 1, Effective Date: March 21, 2016, as corrected (ADAMS Accession No. ML17236A451).
Amendment Number 10 Effective Date: May 31, 2016, as corrected (ADAMS Accession No. ML17236A452).
Amendment Number 11 Effective Date: February 25, 2019.
Amendment Number 12 Effective Date: February 25, 2019.
Safety Analysis Report Submitted by: Holtec International.
Safety Analysis Report Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the HI-STORM 100 Cask System.
Docket Number: 72-1014.
Certificate Expiration Date: May 31, 2020.
Model Number: HI-STORM 100.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notification of public meeting.
Due to inclement weather on November 15, 2018, the FAA announces a replacement public meeting to solicit feedback concerning the New York North Shore Helicopter Rule (“the Rule”). This meeting is being held pursuant to Section 182 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. The Rule requires civil helicopter pilots operating under Visual Flight Rules (VFR), whose route of flight takes them over the north shore of Long Island between the Visual Point Lloyd Harbor (VPLYD) waypoint and Orient Point (VPOLT), to use the North Shore Helicopter Route.
The public meeting will be held on Thursday, December 13, 2018.
The public meeting will be held at Vaugh College, 8601 23rd Avenue, Flushing NY 11369. The meeting is 7:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m. EST.
Christopher Bailey, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration; telephone (202) 267-4158; email
The purpose of the public meeting is for the FAA to obtain feedback relevant to the Rule at subpart H of part 93, which requires civil helicopter pilots operating under VFR, whose route of flight takes them over the north shore of Long Island between the VPLYD waypoint and VPOLT, to use the North Shore Helicopter Route. The FAA will consider comments made at the public meeting in its review of the Rule.
The meeting will use a workshop format. FAA will have several stations covering a number of relevant aspects of the Rule. Each station will be staffed by an FAA representative who is able to answer questions regarding that subject. There will also be a station where the public can submit a written statement or have their oral comment transcribed. No formal presentations will be made.
Section 182 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 also calls for a written comment period on the North Shore Helicopter Rule. See docket number FAA-2018-0954 to submit written comments.
Sign and oral interpretation can be made available at the meeting, as well as an assistive listening device, if requested 3 calendar days before the meeting. The meeting will be open to all persons on a space-available basis. There will be no admission fee or other charge to attend and participate.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Proposed rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is proposing to amend its regulation that defines “biological product” to incorporate changes made by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act), and to provide its interpretation of the statutory terms “protein” and “chemically synthesized polypeptide.” Under that interpretation, the term
Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed rule by February 25, 2019.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before February 25, 2019. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions.”)
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Janice Weiner, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6270, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3475,
FDA proposes to amend its regulation that defines “biological product” to make a technical revision and to conform to the statutory definition enacted in the BPCI Act. The BPCI Act amended the definition of
Under the proposed rule, the term
FDA is proposing to amend its regulations to implement certain aspects of the BPCI Act. FDA's authority for this rule derives from the biological product provisions in section 351 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262), and the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 321,
This proposed rule would codify FDA's interpretation of the statutory terms “protein” and “chemically synthesized polypeptide” in a manner that is consistent with interpretations of these terms that FDA previously described in guidance (see Biosimilars Q&A Guidance). Formalizing these interpretations would reduce regulatory uncertainty over whether certain products are regulated as drugs or biological products. This reduced uncertainty, under the “bright-line” approach described in the proposed rule, would allow both FDA and private industry to avoid spending hours and resources on case-by-case determinations for each product. Our primary estimate of the benefits from these cost savings in 2017 dollars annualized over 10 years is $340,766 using a 7 percent discount rate and $321,506 using a 3 percent discount rate. We also calculate ranges of benefits of $318,137 to $355,690 and $300,617 to $335,282, respectively. Additionally, drug manufacturers would need to spend time to read and understand the proposed rule. We monetize the time spent by industry and estimate an annualized cost range from $14,471 to $18,089, with a primary estimate of $16,079 using a 7 percent discount rate over a 10-year horizon. For a 3 percent discount rate, we estimate a range of $12,378 to $15,472, with a primary estimate of $13,753.
The BPCI Act amended the definition of
The BPCI Act clarified the statutory authority under which certain protein products are to be regulated. Although the majority of therapeutic biological products have been licensed under section 351 of the PHS Act, some protein products historically have been approved under section 505 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355). The BPCI Act requires that a marketing application for a “biological product” (that previously would have been submitted under section 505 of the FD&C Act) must be submitted under section 351 of the PHS Act, subject to certain exceptions during a 10-year transition period ending on March 23, 2020 (see sections 7002(e)(1) through (3) and (e)(5) of the BPCI Act).
The BPCI Act also amended the PHS Act and other statutes to create an abbreviated licensure pathway in section 351(k) of the PHS Act for biological products shown to be biosimilar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed biological reference product (see sections 7001 through 7003 of the BPCI Act). The objectives of the BPCI Act are conceptually similar to those of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (commonly referred to as the “Hatch-Waxman Amendments”), which established abbreviated pathways for the approval of drug products under section 505(b)(2) and (j) of the FD&C Act. FDA is proposing to provide its interpretation of the terms “protein” and “chemically synthesized polypeptide” to clarify the statutory framework under which such products are regulated.
On October 5, 2010, the Agency published a notice of public hearing and request for comments concerning implementation of the BPCI Act (75 FR 61497). Information on this public hearing, including the
FDA reviewed the relevant comments in these public dockets and conducted an extensive analysis of the scientific literature in considering how to interpret “protein (except any chemically synthesized polypeptide)” in the amended definition of “biological product” in section 351(i) of the PHS Act.
Some comments submitted to the public docket established for the Biosimilars Q&A Draft Guidance supported using the size of the alpha amino acid polymer as the basis for FDA's interpretation of the statutory term “protein.” Other comments suggested that FDA should consider structural and/or functional attributes and, for example, interpret the statutory term “protein” to mean an alpha amino acid polymer with a specific defined sequence that requires a stable multidimensional conformation for its function and is manufactured by a process that utilizes a biological system. Several comments suggested that FDA interpret the statutory term “chemically synthesized polypeptide” to mean any linear chain of alpha amino acids that is made entirely by chemical synthesis, irrespective of the size of the chain. Some, but not all, of these comments also suggested that a chemically synthesized polypeptide should not rely on higher order structure for functionality.
A review of the scientific literature and dictionaries demonstrates consensus on certain aspects of the definitions of the terms “protein,” “polypeptide,” and “peptide,” as well as how the definitions vary.
• “A complex, high polymer containing carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and usually sulfur, and composed of chains of amino acids connected by peptide linkages. . . .” (Ref. 1)
• “Protein molecules consist of one or several long chains (polypeptides) of amino acids linked in a characteristic sequence.” (Ref. 2)
• “A high molecular weight polypeptide of L-amino acids that is synthesized by living cells. Proteins are biopolymers with a wide range of molecular weights, structural complexity, and functional properties.” (Ref. 3)
• “Any of a large class of complex organic chemical compounds that. . .consist of long chains of amino acids connected by peptide bonds and have distinct and varied three-dimensional structures.” (Ref. 4)
• “The class of compounds composed of acid units chemically bound together with amide linkages (-CO·NH-) with elimination of water. A polypeptide is thus a polymer of amino acids. The chain of amino acids (less than 100) are linked by peptide bonds.” (Ref. 1)
• “A peptide comprising 20 or more amino acids. Polypeptides that
• “The term [polypeptide] is most often used for proteins, which can consist of one or more polypeptide chains, but can also be used more generally for all amino acid polymers including peptides, polyamino acids, and chemically synthesized polymers of amino acids.” (Ref. 5)
• “A linear polymer of more than 10 amino acids that are linked by means of peptide bonds.” (Ref. 3)
• “A peptide which on hydrolysis yields more than two amino acids. . . . See peptide.” (Ref. 6)
• “See polypeptide.” (Ref. 1)
• “Any of a group of organic compounds comprising two or more amino acids linked by peptide bonds. . . . Polypeptides contain more than 20 and usually 100-300.” (Ref. 2)
• “A chemical compound that is composed of a chain of two or more amino acids and is usually smaller than a protein.” (Ref. 4)
• “Any member of a class of compounds of low molecular weight which yield two or more amino acids on hydrolysis. . . . Peptides form the constituent parts of proteins.” (Ref. 6)
• “Peptides . . . are oligomers in which the repeating units are amino acids. Peptides have a defined sequence of amino acids that are linked together by formation of peptide bonds. In contrast to polypeptides and proteins, peptides consist of a small number of amino acids. The distinction between a peptide and a polypeptide is somewhat arbitrary, but generally a peptide has between 2 and 50 amino acid residues. . . . Most peptides are unstructured, described as having a random coil conformation, but others have highly ordered secondary and tertiary structure similar to that observed in larger proteins.” (Ref. 5)
• “Most natural polypeptide chains contain between 50 and 2000 amino acid residues and are commonly referred to as proteins. Peptides made of small numbers of amino acids are called oligopeptides or simply peptides.” (Ref. 7)
• “Proteins are molecules that consist of one or more polypeptide chains. These polypeptides range in length from ~40 to ~33,000 amino acid residues.” (Ref. 8)
• “Proteins consist of one or more linear polymers called polypeptides . . . a minimum of 40 residues seems to be required for a polypeptide to adopt a stable three-dimensional structure in water.” (Ref. 9)
• “Many terms are used to denote the chains formed by the polymerization of amino acids. A short chain of amino acids linked by peptide bonds and having a defined sequence is called an oligopeptide, or just peptide; longer chains are referred to as polypeptides. Peptides generally contain fewer than 20-30 amino acid residues, whereas polypeptides are often 200-500 residues long.” (Ref. 10)
• “A protein molecule is made from a long chain of these amino acids, each linked to its neighbor through a covalent peptide bond. Proteins are therefore also known as polypeptides. Each type of protein has a unique sequence of amino acids. . . . Proteins come in a wide variety of shapes, and they are generally between 50 and 2000 amino acids long.” (Ref. 11)
As the previous examples demonstrate, sources disagree over certain aspects of the definitions of these terms, especially the term “polypeptide.”
At the same time, despite the lack of precise, agreed-upon definitions, most, if not all, sources agree about certain aspects of the meanings of these terms. These areas of agreement may be summarized in the following manner. First, all of the terms (
In applying its scientific expertise to interpret the statutory terms “protein” and “chemically synthesized polypeptide,” FDA seeks to establish a scientifically reasonable, bright-line rule that provides regulatory clarity and facilitates the implementation of the BPCI Act. A clear rule facilitates efficient use of time and resources by both FDA and applicants and reduces regulatory uncertainty.
Under the Agency's proposed interpretation, the term “protein” in the amended definition of
With these considerations in mind, FDA is proposing a size-based cutoff for distinguishing peptides from proteins that is supported by scientific sources. This approach reflects the Agency's conclusion that, other than size, there does not appear to be a precise set of structural or functional attributes that would define a protein so as to clearly distinguish proteins from peptides. Specifically, for purposes of interpreting the BPCI Act, the Agency is proposing to codify that “
FDA's authority for this proposed rule derives from the biological product provisions in section 351 of the PHS Act and the provisions of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321,
This proposed rule would amend the definition of
We are proposing to revise the definition of
We also are proposing to define a
Under the proposed rule, the term
In the absence of clear scientific consensus on definitive criteria that distinguish proteins from peptides, including the exact size at which a chain(s) of amino acids becomes a protein, FDA reviewed the pertinent literature and concluded that a threshold of 40 amino acids is appropriate for defining the upper size boundary of a peptide. Although there also is support in the scientific literature for a threshold of 50 amino acids, FDA believes that a threshold of 40 amino acids is more appropriate based on the scientific literature and alignment with current regulatory practice (see Refs. 5, 7, 8, 9, 11). FDA's proposal to use a threshold of 40 amino acids for its “bright-line” approach reflects that amino acid polymers that are greater than 40 amino acids may often assume several of the structural and functional characteristics that are generally associated with proteins, lending a higher level of complexity to these products. Accordingly, FDA proposes to consider any polymer composed of 40 or fewer amino acids to be a peptide and not a protein. Therefore, unless a peptide otherwise meets the statutory definition of a “biological product,” it would be regulated as a drug under the FD&C Act.
Where an amino acid polymer is greater than 40 amino acids in size and is related to a naturally occurring peptide (
Some amino acid polymers are composed of multiple amino acid chains that are associated with each other. To determine the size of such an amino acid polymer for purposes of FDA's interpretation of the terms “protein” and “chemically synthesized polypeptide,” FDA would evaluate whether two or more of its amino acid chains are associated in a manner that is found in naturally occurring proteins. In proposed § 600.3(h)(6) and (7), FDA explains that when two or more amino acid chains in an amino acid polymer are associated with each other in a manner that occurs in nature, the size of the amino acid polymer would be based on the total number of amino acids in those chains, and would not be limited to the number of amino acids in a contiguous sequence. In other words, the amino acids in each such amino acid chain would be added together to determine whether the product meets the numerical threshold in FDA's interpretation of the terms “protein” and “chemically synthesized polypeptide.” However, for products with amino acid chains that are associated with each other in a manner that is not found in nature (
The proposed rule would define
Where an amino acid polymer is greater than 99 amino acids in size and is related to a naturally occurring peptide or polypeptide of shorter length, such a polymer would be reviewed to determine whether the additional amino acids that cause the polymer to exceed 99 amino acids in size raise any concerns about the risk/benefit profile of the product.
FDA's proposed interpretation of this statutory term is informed by several factors. The statutory category of “protein” parenthetically excludes “any chemically synthesized polypeptide.” There are several definitions of
FDA seeks comment on any additional considerations for proposed products that are combination products or meet the statutory definition of both a “device” and a “biological product.” We also encourage prospective sponsors or applicants to contact FDA with product-specific questions. Any final rule that results from this proposed rule will become effective 60 days after publication in the
If finalized, this rule would take effect 60 days after publication in the
We have examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 13771, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13771 requires that the costs associated with significant new regulations “shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations.” We believe that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because this rule does not impose new regulatory burden on small entities, other than administrative costs of reading and understanding the rule, we propose to certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $150 million, using the most current (2017) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This proposed rule would not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.
This proposed rule would codify FDA's interpretation of the statutory terms “protein” and “chemically synthesized polypeptide,” in a manner that is consistent with interpretations of these terms that FDA previously described in the April 30, 2015, guidance (see Biosimilars Q&A Guidance). Formalizing these interpretations would reduce regulatory uncertainty introduced by the BPCI Act. Specifically, the proposed rule would clarify the criteria for whether certain products are regulated as drugs or biological products. The “bright-line” approach under the proposed rule would reduce the amount of time spent by FDA staff and industry in support of making such determinations.
In this regulatory impact analysis, we identify the products most likely to require a case-by-case determination under the baseline scenario. Under the proposed rule, these determinations would be made by FDA according to the bright-line standard proposed. We calculate the cost savings from the amount of time saved by both FDA and industry by avoiding a case-by-case determination. We also calculate the incremental costs to industry that are the result of reading and understanding the rule.
The primary estimate of the benefits in 2017 dollars annualized over 10 years is $340,766 using a 7 percent discount rate and $321,506 using a 3 percent discount rate. We also calculate ranges of benefits of $313,373 to $355,690 and $296,220 to $335,282, respectively. The estimated annualized costs range from $14,471 to $18,089, with a primary estimate of $16,079 using a 7 percent discount rate over a 10-year horizon. For a 3 percent discount rate, we estimate a range of $12,378 to $15,472, with a primary estimate of $13,753. These figures are shown in table 1 below.
In line with Executive Order 13771, in table 2 we estimate present and annualized values of costs and cost savings over an infinite time horizon. Based on these cost savings, this proposed rule would be considered a deregulatory action under Executive Order 13771.
To determine the impact of the proposed rule on small entities, we first determined how many firms would be affected. We estimate that at least 1,615 firms classified in the Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing industry employ fewer than 1,250 employees and are therefore also classified as small businesses. Although a large number of small businesses will face costs under the proposed rule, the costs to these firms would be limited to the time burden of reading the proposed rule. We estimate that the time burden of reading the rule would be about $77 per firm, with a lower bound of $69 and upper bound of $86. This range of costs is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We have developed a comprehensive Preliminary Economic Analysis of Impacts that assesses the impacts of the proposed rule. The full preliminary analysis of economic impacts is available in the docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 12) and at
We have determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) that this proposed rule is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
FDA tentatively concludes that this proposed rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13175. We have tentatively determined that the rule does not contain policies that would have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. The Agency solicits comments from tribal officials on any potential impact on Indian Tribes from this proposed action.
We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. We have determined that this proposed rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, we conclude that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive
The following reference marked with an asterisk (*) is on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see
FDA has verified the website address, as of the date this document publishes in the
Biologics, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, under the Public Health Service Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, we propose that 21 CFR part 600 be amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353, 355, 356c, 356e, 360, 360i, 371, 374, 379k-1; 42 U.S.C. 216, 262, 263, 263a, 264, 300aa-25.
(h)
(6) A protein is any alpha amino acid polymer with a specific, defined sequence that is greater than 40 amino acids in size. When two or more amino acid chains in an amino acid polymer are associated with each other in a manner that occurs in nature, the size of the amino acid polymer for purposes of this paragraph (h)(6) will be based on the total number of amino acids in those chains, and will not be limited to the number of amino acids in a contiguous sequence.
(7) A chemically synthesized polypeptide is any alpha amino acid polymer that is made entirely by chemical synthesis and is greater than 40 amino acids but less than 100 amino acids in size. When two or more amino acid chains in an amino acid polymer are associated with each other in a manner that occurs in nature, the size of the amino acid polymer for purposes of this paragraph (h)(7) will be based on the total number of amino acids in those chains, and will not be limited to the number of amino acids in a contiguous sequence.
In proposed rule document 2018-26321 beginning on page 62750 in the issue of Thursday, December 6, 2018, make the following correction:
On page 62751, in the first column, in the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Reinstatement of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a reinstatement of approval of an information collection associated with the Cooperative State-Federal Brucellosis Eradication Program.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before February 11, 2019.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the Cooperative State-Federal Brucellosis Eradication Program, contact Dr. Mark Camacho, National Cattle Health Epidemiologist, Surveillance, Preparedness, and Response Services, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 920 Campus Drive, Suite 200, Raleigh, NC 27606; (919) 855-7249. For more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Disease prevention and disease surveillance are the most effective methods for maintaining a healthy animal population and for enhancing the United States' ability to compete in the world market of animal and animal product trade. The Veterinary Services (VS) unit of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for administering regulations intended to protect the health of the U.S. livestock population.
Brucellosis is an infectious disease of animals and humans caused by bacteria of the genus
The Cooperative State-Federal Brucellosis Eradication Program is a national program to eliminate this serious disease of livestock. The program is conducted under the authority of the various States and supplemented by Federal authorities regulating interstate movement of infected animals. Regulations in 9 CFR part 78 outline the Cooperative State-Federal Brucellosis Eradication Program. The regulations include required surveillance, epidemiological investigation, annual reporting, and interstate movement activities that must be documented.
Minimum program standards known as the Brucellosis Eradication Uniform Methods and Rules (UM&R) have been developed cooperatively by organizations representing the livestock industry, State animal health agencies, and the USDA. State and Federal officials in charge of program activities in each State are responsible for continuously evaluating the efficiency of local procedures in locating and eliminating infected livestock. The minimum standards in the UM&R must be met or exceeded throughout the certification period to maintain continuous status. Meeting these standards requires information collection.
Information is generally collected by State and Federal animal health officials through interviews or reviewing records. In addition, the information on some documents may be collected by private veterinary practitioners (
In addition, the bovine brucellosis program regulations in part 78 provide a system for classifying States or portions of States according to the rate of
The creation of brucellosis management areas allows States that have found
We are asking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
On October 17, 2018, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Metroplex International Trade Development Corporation, grantee of FTZ 168, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 168, on behalf of Schumacher Electric Corporation, in Fort Worth, Texas.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 168F was approved on December 6, 2018, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 168's 1,955.59-acre activation limit.
On October 19, 2018, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Port of Houston Authority, grantee of FTZ 84, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 84, on behalf of BAUER-Pileco Inc., in Conroe, Texas.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 84Z was approved on December 6, 2018, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 84's 2,000-acre activation limit.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that producers/exporters subject to this review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the May 10, 2016, through October 31, 2017, period of review (POR). We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable December 12, 2018.
Laurel LaCivita or Stephanie Berger, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4243 and (202) 482-2483, respectively.
Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on welded stainless pressure pipe (WSPP) from India.
The merchandise covered by this order is circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches in outside diameter. For purposes of this scope, references to size are in nominal inches and include all products within tolerances allowed by pipe specifications. This merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A-312 or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. ASTM A-358 products are only included when they are produced to meet ASTM A-312 or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications.
The subject imports are normally classified in subheadings 7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 7306.40.5064, and 7306.40.5085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). They may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7306.40.1010, 7306.40.1015, 7306.40.5042, 7306.40.5044, 7306.40.5080, and 7306.40.5090. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and (2) of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price and constructed export price were calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value was calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
We preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:
Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
If the weighted-average dumping margin for the mandatory respondents (
For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the weighted-average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for mandatory review (
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by each respondent for which they did not know that their merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries not reviewed at the all-others rate of 8.35 percent if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of WSPP from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each company listed above will be equal to the dumping margins established in the final results of this review except if the ultimate rates are
Commerce will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system within 30 days of publication of this notice.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), Commerce will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their case briefs, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of review is are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that eight companies, including the mandatory respondent, Decca Furniture Ltd. (Decca), have not established their entitlement to a separate rate and are part of the China-wide entity, and that five companies had no reviewable transactions during the January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017, period of review (POR). We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable December 12, 2018.
Patrick O'Connor, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0989.
After initiating this review with respect to 73 companies or company groupings,
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
The product covered by the
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.213. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary results of review,
Because U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) did not provide any information contradicting the claims of five of the companies under review which claimed to have made no shipments, Commerce preliminarily determines that these five companies did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR.
Decca was the only company under review that submitted a separate rate application, and Commerce issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to Decca as the sole mandatory respondent. However, as noted above, Decca did not respond to Commerce's antidumping duty questionnaire. Therefore, Commerce preliminarily determines that Decca did not establish its eligibility for separate rate status. In addition, seven other companies for which a review was requested failed to provide separate rate applications or certifications.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments, filed electronically using ACCESS, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days after the due date for case briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this review are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a summary of the argument not to exceed five pages, and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.
Unless extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this AR, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs received, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon issuing the final results of this review, Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed China and non-China exporters that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the China-wide entity, which is 216.01 percent; and (3) for all non-China exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the China exporter that supplied that non-China exporter.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on silicomanganese from the People's Republic of China (China) and Ukraine would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of the AD orders on silicomanganese from China and Ukraine.
Applicable December 12, 2018.
Jonathan Cornfield, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3855.
On October 4, 2017, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the fourth sunset reviews of the
The merchandise covered by these orders is silicomanganese. Silicomanganese, which is sometimes called ferrosilicon manganese, is a ferroalloy composed principally of manganese, silicon, and iron, and normally contains much smaller proportions of minor elements, such as carbon, phosphorous and sulfur. Silicomanganese generally contains by weight not less than 4 percent iron, more than 30 percent manganese, more than 8 percent silicon and not more than 3 percent phosphorous. All compositions, forms and sizes of silicomanganese are included within the scope of these orders, including silicomanganese slag, fines and briquettes. Silicomanganese is used primarily in steel production as a source of both silicon and manganese.
Silicomanganese is currently classifiable under subheading 7202.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Some silicomanganese may also currently be classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7202.99.5040.
As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the
The effective date of the continuation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO which may be subject to sanctions.
These five-year (sunset) reviews and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
NMFS announces that all Atlantic HMS tournaments will be selected for reporting beginning on January 1, 2019. Previously, only a portion of Atlantic HMS tournaments were selected for reporting. An Atlantic HMS tournament is a tournament that awards points or prizes for catching Atlantic HMS (
Selection of all Atlantic HMS tournaments for reporting will begin January 1, 2019.
Nicolas Alvarado at 727-209-5955 or 727-824-5398 (fax), or email
The U.S. Atlantic HMS fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan and its amendments. Implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 635 are issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801
An Atlantic HMS tournament is a tournament that awards points or prizes for catching Atlantic HMS (swordfish, billfish, sharks and/or tunas). Existing regulations at § 635.5(d) require Atlantic HMS tournament operators to register their tournaments with NMFS four weeks in advance of the tournament.
In addition to requiring tournament operators to register, the regulations at § 635.5(d) also authorize NMFS to select HMS tournaments for reporting. Currently, all billfish and swordfish tournaments are selected for reporting. When selected for reporting, Atlantic HMS tournament operators are required to submit an HMS tournament catch summary report within seven days after tournament fishing has ended.
NMFS recently developed the online Atlantic Tournament Registration and Reporting (ATR) system that allows tournament operators to easily register their tournaments and report. For over a year, NMFS received positive feedback from tournament operators about the ease of use of the ATR system.
In this notice, NMFS announces that all Atlantic HMS tournaments, not just billfish and swordfish tournaments, will be selected for reporting beginning on January 1, 2019. The estimated burden to the public for all HMS tournaments to report has already been approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act (OMB 0648-0323). NMFS does not expect the burden on tournaments to increase as most of the catch data in the summary report is routinely collected in the course of regular tournament operations and all tournament operators may use the ATR system to report. NMFS uses the data collected in these reports to estimate the total annual catch of HMS and the potential impacts to tournament operations in relation to other types of fishing activities. For more information about Atlantic HMS tournament registration and reporting, please go to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of applications for permits.
Notice is hereby given that three applicants have applied in due form for permits to take smalltooth sawfish (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before January 11, 2019.
The permit requests and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the Features box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
Written comments on the pertinent application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on the application would be appropriate.
Malcolm Mohead or Erin Markin at (301) 427-8401.
The subject permits are requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
Sampling would be conducted year-round with gillnets, longlines, seines, cast nets, and angling gear. The applicant anticipates annually capturing and sampling a maximum of 150 sawfish annually (100 neonates and juveniles and 50 subadults and adults). Depending on the life stage and research objective, research activities would include: Measurement, weigh (when possible), ultrasound, photograph/video, genetic tissue fin clip, muscle biopsy, external dart tag, PIT tag, and blood draw. Additionally, subsets of each life stage group would receive internal or external telemetry devices
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice of fee rate adjustment.
NMFS issues this notice to inform the public that there will be an increase of the fee rate required to repay the $35,000,000 reduction loan financing the non-pollock groundfish fishing capacity reduction program. Effective January 1, 2019, NMFS is increasing the Loan A fee rate to $0.017 per pound to ensure timely loan repayment. The fee rate for Loan B will remain unchanged at $0.001 per pound.
The non-pollock groundfish program fee rate increase will begin with landings on and after January 1, 2019. The first due date for fee payments with the increased rate will be February 15, 2019.
Send questions about this notice to Michael A. Sturtevant, Acting Chief, Financial Services Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282.
Elaine Saiz, (301) 427-8752.
Sections 312(b)-(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a(b) through (e)) generally authorizes fishing capacity reduction programs. In particular, section 312(d) authorizes industry fee systems for repaying reduction loans which finance reduction program costs. Subpart L of 50 CFR part 600 is the framework rule generally implementing section 312(b)-(e). Sections 1111 and 1112 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1279f and 1279g) generally authorize reduction loans.
Enacted on December 8, 2004, section 219, Title II, of FY 2005 Appropriations Act, Public Law 104-447 (Act) authorizes a fishing capacity reduction program implementing capacity reduction plans submitted to NMFS by catcher processor subsectors of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (“BSAI”) non-pollock groundfish fishery (“reduction fishery”) as set forth in the Act.
The longline catcher processor subsector (the “Longline Subsector”) is among the catcher processor subsectors eligible to submit to NMFS a capacity reduction plan under the terms of the Act.
The longline subsector non-pollock groundfish reduction program's objective was to reduce the number of vessels and permits endorsed for longline subsector of the non-pollock groundfish fishery.
All post-reduction fish landings from the reduction fishery are subject to the longline subsector non-pollock groundfish program's fee.
NMFS proposed the implementing notice on August 11, 2006 (71 FR 46364), and published the final notice on September 29, 2006 (71 FR 57696).
NMFS allocated the $35,000,000 reduction loan (A Loan) to the reduction fishery and this loan is repayable by fees from the fishery.
On September 24, 2007, NMFS published in the
NMFS published, in the
NMFS published a final rule to implement a second $2,700,000 reduction loan (B Loan) for this fishery in the
The purpose of this notice is to adjust the fee rate for the reduction fishery in accordance with the framework rule's § 600.1013(b). Section 600.1013(b) directs NMFS to recalculate the fee rate that will be reasonably necessary to ensure reduction loan repayment within the specified 30 year term.
NMFS has determined for the reduction fishery that the current fee rate of $0.013 per pound is less than that needed to service the A Loan. Therefore, NMFS is increasing the Loan A fee rate to $0.017 per pound which NMFS has determined is sufficient to ensure timely loan repayment. The fee rate for Loan B will remain $0.001 per pound.
Subsector members may continue to use Pay.gov to disburse collected fee deposits at:
Please visit the NMFS website for additional information at:
The new fee rate for the non-pollock Groundfish fishery will begin on January 1, 2019.
From and after this date, all subsector members paying fees on the non-pollock groundfish fishery shall begin paying non-pollock groundfish fishery program fees at the revised rate.
Fee collection and submission shall follow previously established methods in § 600.1013 of the framework rule and in the final fee rule published in the
The authority for this action is Public Law 108-447, 16 U.S.C. 1861a (b-e), and 50 CFR 600.1000
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of standard prices and fee percentage.
NMFS publishes the individual fishing quota (IFQ) standard prices and fee percentage for cost recovery for the IFQ Program for the halibut and sablefish fisheries of the North Pacific (IFQ Program). The fee percentage for 2018 is 2.8 percent. This action is intended to provide holders of halibut and sablefish IFQ permits with the 2018 standard prices and fee percentage to calculate the required payment for IFQ cost recovery fees due by January 31, 2019.
The standard prices and fee percentages are valid on December 12, 2018.
Carl Greene, Fee Coordinator, 907-586-7105.
NMFS Alaska Region administers the IFQ Program in the North Pacific. The IFQ Program is a limited access system authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982. Fishing under the IFQ Program began in March 1995. Regulations implementing the IFQ Program are set forth at 50 CFR part 679.
In 1996, the Magnuson-Stevens Act was amended to, among other purposes, require the Secretary of Commerce to “collect a fee to recover the actual costs directly related to the management and enforcement of any . . . individual quota program.” This requirement was further amended in 2006 to include collection of the actual costs of data collection, and to replace the reference to “individual quota program” with a more general reference to “limited access privilege program” at section 304(d)(2)(A). Section 304(d)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act also specifies an upper limit on these fees, when the fees must be collected, and where the fees must be deposited.
On March 20, 2000, NMFS published regulations in § 679.45 implementing cost recovery for the IFQ Program (65 FR 14919). Under the regulations, an IFQ permit holder must pay a cost recovery fee for every pound of IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish that is landed on his or her IFQ permit(s). The IFQ permit holder is responsible for self-collecting the fee for all IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish landings on his or her permit(s). The IFQ permit holder is also responsible for submitting IFQ fee payment(s) to NMFS on or before the due date of January 31 of the year following the year in which the IFQ landings were made. The total dollar amount of the fee due is determined by multiplying the NMFS published fee percentage by the ex-vessel value of all IFQ landings made on the permit(s) during the IFQ fishing year. As required by § 679.45(d)(1) and (d)(3)(i), NMFS publishes this notice of the fee percentage for the halibut and sablefish IFQ fisheries in the
The fee is based on the sum of all payments made to fishermen for the sale of the fish during the year. This includes any retro-payments (
For purposes of calculating IFQ cost recovery fees, NMFS distinguishes between two types of ex-vessel value: Actual and standard. Actual ex-vessel value is the amount of all compensation, monetary or non-monetary, that an IFQ permit holder received as payment for his or her IFQ fish sold. Standard ex-vessel value is the default value used to calculate the fee. IFQ permit holders have the option of using actual ex-vessel value if they can satisfactorily document it; otherwise, the standard ex-vessel value is used.
Section 679.45(b)(3)(iii) requires the Regional Administrator to publish IFQ standard prices during the last quarter of each calendar year. These standard prices are used, along with estimates of IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish landings, to calculate standard ex-vessel values. The standard prices are described in U.S. dollars per IFQ equivalent pound for IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish landings made during the year. According to § 679.2, IFQ equivalent pound(s) means the weight amount, recorded in pounds, and calculated as round weight for sablefish and headed and gutted weight for halibut, for an IFQ landing. The weight of halibut in
NMFS calculates the fee percentage each year according to the factors and methods described at § 679.45(d)(2). NMFS determines the fee percentage that applies to landings made in the previous year by dividing the total costs directly related to the management, data collection, and enforcement of the IFQ Program (management costs) during the previous year by the total standard ex-vessel value of IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish landings made during the previous year (fishery value). NMFS captures the actual management costs associated with certain management, data collection, and enforcement functions through an established accounting system that allows staff to track labor, travel, contracts, rent, and procurement. NMFS calculates the fishery value as described under the section, Standard Prices.
Using the fee percentage formula described above, the estimated percentage of management costs to fishery value for the 2018 calendar year is 2.8 percent of the standard ex-vessel value, which is below the 3.0 maximum fee percentage allowed under section 304(d)(2)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. An IFQ permit holder is to use the fee percentage of 2.8 percent to calculate his or her fee for IFQ equivalent pound(s) landed during the 2018 halibut and sablefish IFQ fishing season. An IFQ permit holder is responsible for submitting the 2018 IFQ fee payment to NMFS on or before January 31, 2019. Payment must be made in accordance with the payment methods set forth in § 679.45(a)(4). NMFS no longer accepts credit card information by phone or in-person for fee payments. NMFS has determined that the practice of accepting credit card information by phone or in-person no longer meets agency standards for protection of personal financial information (81 FR 23645, April 22, 2016).
The 2018 fee percentage of 2.8 percent is higher than the 2017 fee percentage of 2.2 percent (82 FR 60379, December 20, 2017). Although management costs for the IFQ Program fisheries dropped 1.9 percent from 2017 to 2018, the rise in fee percentage can be attributed to an estimated 22.4 percent decrease in the value of the fisheries over the same period.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public workshops.
Free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in January, February, and March of 2019. Certain fishermen and shark dealers are required to attend a workshop to meet regulatory requirements and to maintain valid permits. Specifically, the Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop is mandatory for all federally permitted Atlantic shark dealers. The Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop is mandatory for vessel owners and operators who use bottom longline, pelagic longline, or gillnet gear, and who have also been issued shark or swordfish limited access permits. Additional free workshops will be conducted during 2019 and will be announced in a future notice.
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held on January 10, February 7, and March 28, 2019. The Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held on January 10, January 15, February 1, February 7, March 1, and March 13, 2019. See
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held in Boutte, LA; Virginia Beach, VA; and Fort Pierce, FL. The Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in Portsmouth, NH; Key Largo, FL; Gulfport, MS; Charleston, SC; Manahawkin, NJ; and Houston, TX. See
Rick Pearson by phone: (727) 824-5399.
The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding the Atlantic Shark ID and Safe Handling, Release, and ID workshops are posted on the internet at:
Since January 1, 2008, Atlantic shark dealers have been prohibited from receiving, purchasing, trading, or bartering for Atlantic sharks unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit that first receives Atlantic sharks (71 FR 58057; January 2, 2006). Dealers who attend and successfully complete a workshop are issued a certificate for each place of business that is permitted to receive sharks. These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. Thus, certificates that were initially issued in 2016 will be expiring in 2019. Approximately 151 free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops have been conducted since January 2008.
Currently, permitted dealers may send a proxy to an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop. However, if a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy for each place of business covered by the dealer's permit which first receives Atlantic sharks. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. A proxy must be a person who is currently employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and who fills out dealer reports. Atlantic shark dealers are prohibited from renewing a Federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate for each business location that first receives Atlantic sharks has
1. January 10, 2019, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., La Quinta Inn, 14221 Highway 90, Boutte, LA 70039.
2. February 7, 2019, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Hampton Inn, 1011 Atlantic Avenue, Virginia Beach, VA 23451.
3. March 28, 2019, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Hampton Inn, 1985 Reynolds Drive, Fort Pierce, FL 34945.
To register for a scheduled Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, please contact Eric Sander at
To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items to the workshop:
• Atlantic shark dealer permit holders must bring proof that the attendee is an owner or agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit, and proof of identification.
• Atlantic shark dealer proxies must bring documentation from the permitted dealer acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the permitted Atlantic shark dealer for a specific business location, a copy of the appropriate valid permit, and proof of identification.
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are designed to reduce the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks reported in the dealer reporting form and increase the accuracy of species-specific dealer-reported information. Reducing the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks will improve quota monitoring and the data used in stock assessments. These workshops will train shark dealer permit holders or their proxies to properly identify Atlantic shark carcasses.
Since January 1, 2007, shark limited-access and swordfish limited-access permit holders who fish with longline or gillnet gear have been required to submit a copy of their Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop certificate in order to renew either permit (71 FR 58057; January 2, 2006). These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. Certificates issued in 2016 will be expiring in 2019. As such, vessel owners who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel owners whose certificate(s) will expire prior to the next permit renewal, must attend a workshop to fish with, or renew, their swordfish and shark limited-access permits. Additionally, new shark and swordfish limited-access permit applicants who intend to fish with longline or gillnet gear must attend a Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and submit a copy of their workshop certificate before either of the permits will be issued. Approximately 292 free Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops have been conducted since 2006.
In addition to certifying vessel owners, at least one operator on board vessels issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit that uses longline or gillnet gear is required to attend a Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and receive a certificate. Vessels that have been issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit and that use longline or gillnet gear may not fish unless both the vessel owner and operator have valid workshop certificates onboard at all times. Vessel operators who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel operators whose certificate(s) will expire prior to their next fishing trip, must attend a workshop to operate a vessel with swordfish and shark limited-access permits that uses longline or gillnet gear.
1. January 10, 2019, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 300 Woodbury Avenue, Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801.
2. January 15, 2019, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 99701 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, FL 33037.
3. February 1, 2019, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Gulf Coast Event Center, 9475 Highway 49, Gulfport, MS 39503.
4. February 7, 2019, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hampton Inn, 678 Citadel Haven Drive, Charleston, SC 29414.
5. March 1, 2019, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 151 Route 72 West, Manahawkin, NJ 08050.
6. March 13, 2019, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn Express, 9300 South Main Street, Houston, TX 77025.
To register for a scheduled Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop, please contact Angler Conservation Education at (386) 682-0158. Pre-registration is highly recommended, but not required.
To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items with them to the workshop:
• Individual vessel owners must bring a copy of the appropriate swordfish and/or shark permit(s), a copy of the vessel registration or documentation, and proof of identification.
• Representatives of a business-owned or co-owned vessel must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable swordfish and/or shark permit(s), and proof of identification.
• Vessel operators must bring proof of identification.
The Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops are designed to teach longline and gillnet fishermen the required techniques for the safe handling and release of entangled and/or hooked protected species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, and smalltooth sawfish, and prohibited sharks. In an effort to improve reporting, the proper identification of protected species and prohibited sharks will also be taught at these workshops. Additionally, individuals attending these workshops will gain a better understanding of the requirements for participating in these fisheries. The overall goal of these workshops is to provide participants with the skills needed to reduce the mortality of protected species and prohibited sharks, which may prevent additional regulations on these fisheries in the future.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Proposed collection; comment request.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites comments on a proposed extension of an existing information collection: 0651-0051 (Madrid Protocol).
Written comments must be submitted on or before February 11, 2019.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Catherine Cain, Attorney Advisor, Office of the Commissioner for Trademarks, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-8946; or by email at
This collection of information is required by the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. 1051
The Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (“Madrid Protocol”) is an international treaty that allows a trademark owner to seek registration in any of the participating countries by filing a single international application. The International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, Switzerland, administers the international registration system. The Madrid Protocol Implementation Act of 2002 amended the Trademark Act to provide that: (1) The owner of a U.S. application or registration may seek protection of its mark in any of the participating countries by submitting a single international application to the IB through the USPTO, and (2) the holder of an international registration may request an extension of protection of the international registration to the United States. The Madrid Protocol became effective in the United States on November 2, 2003, and is implemented under 15 U.S.C. 1141
An international application submitted through the USPTO must be based on an active U.S. application or registration and must be filed by the owner of the application or registration. The USPTO reviews the international application to certify that it corresponds to the data contained in the existing U.S. application or registration before forwarding the international application to the IB. The IB then reviews the international application to determine whether the Madrid filing requirements have been met and the required fees have been paid. If the international application is unacceptable, the IB will send a notice of irregularity to the USPTO and the applicant. The applicant must respond to the irregularities to avoid abandonment, unless a response from the USPTO is required. After any irregularities are corrected and the application is accepted, the IB issues an international registration number, publishes the registration in the WIPO Gazette of International Marks, and sends the certificate to the holder.
When the international registration is issued, the IB notifies each country designated in the application of the request for extension of protection. Each designated country then examines the request under its own laws. Once an international registration exists, the holder may also file subsequent designations to request an extension of protection to additional countries or request extension of goods/services not already extended to previously designated countries.
Under Section 71 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1141(k), a registered extension of protection to the United States will be cancelled unless the holder of the international registration periodically files affidavits of continued use in commerce or excusable nonuse. The first affidavit must be filed on or between the fifth- or sixth-year anniversaries of the date on which the USPTO registers an extension of protection.
This collection includes the information necessary for the USPTO to process applications for international registration and related requests under the Madrid Protocol. The USPTO provides electronic forms for filing the items in this information collection online (except for the Request to Record an Assignment or Restriction of a Holder's Right to Dispose of an International Registration) using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), which is available through the USPTO website.
Applicants may also submit the items in this collection on paper or by using the forms provided by the IB, which are available on the WIPO website. The IB requires Applications for International Registration and Applications for Subsequent Designation that are filed on paper to be submitted on the official IB forms.
Electronically, if applicants submit the information using the TEAS forms. By mail or hand delivery, if applicants choose to submit the information in paper form.
Customers may incur postage costs when submitting some of the items covered by this collection to the USPTO by mail. The USPTO expects that approximately 98% of the responses in this collection will be submitted electronically. Of the remaining 1 percent, the vast majority will be submitted by mail, for a total of 9 mailed submissions. The average first-class USPS postage cost for a mailed submission will be $0.50. Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the postage costs for the mailed submissions in this collection will total $4.50.
The USPTO charges fees for processing international applications and related requests under the Madrid Protocol, as set forth in 37 CFR 2.6 and 37 CFR 7.6. Most of these fees are charged per class of goods or services. Therefore, the total fees can vary depending on the number of classes. Based on the minimum fee of one class per relevant document, the USPTO estimates that the total filing fees associated with this collection will be approximately $12,182,250 per year, as calculated in the table below.
Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the total annual (non-hour) cost burden for this collection, in the form of postage costs ($4.50) and filing fees ($12,182,250), is $12,182,254.50 per year.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
Proposed collection; comment request.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites comments on this proposed extension of an existing information collection.
Written comments must be submitted on or before February 11, 2019.
Written comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Dahlia George, Office of Enrollment and Discipline, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-4097; or by email at
The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has the authority to establish regulations governing the conduct and discipline of agents, attorneys, or other persons representing applicants and other parties before the USPTO (35 U.S.C. 2 and 32-33). The USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct at 37 CFR 11.101-11.804 describe how agents, attorneys, or other practitioners representing applicants and other parties before the USPTO should conduct themselves professionally and outline their responsibilities for recordkeeping and reporting violations or complaints of misconduct to the USPTO, while the Investigations and Disciplinary Proceedings Rules (37 CFR 11.19-11.60) dictate how the USPTO can discipline agents, attorneys, or other persons representing applicants and other parties before the USPTO. These sets of rules are collectively referred to here as “Part 11.”
This collection covers the various reporting and recordkeeping requirements set forth in Part 11 for all agents, attorneys, or other practitioners representing applicants and other parties before the USPTO. The Rules require a practitioner to maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of clients coming into his or her possession, and to render appropriate accounts to the client regarding the funds, securities, and other properties of clients coming into the practitioner's possession, collectively known as “client property.” These recordkeeping requirements are necessary to maintain the integrity of client property. Each State Bar requires its attorneys to perform similar recordkeeping and these Rules require patent agents to maintain similar recordkeeping for clients.
Part 11 also requires a practitioner to report knowledge of certain violations of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct to the USPTO. If a complaint or grievance is found to have merit, the USPTO will investigate and possibly prosecute such violations and provide the practitioner with the opportunity to respond to the complaint. The Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) may, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, suspend, exclude, or disqualify any practitioner from further practice before the USPTO based on non-compliance with the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct. Practitioners who have been excluded or suspended from practice before the USPTO, practitioners transferred to disability inactive status, and practitioners who have resigned must keep and maintain records of their steps to comply with the suspension or exclusion order, transfer to disability inactive status, or resignation should they seek reinstatement. These records may serve as the practitioner's proof of compliance with the order, transfer, resignation, and Rules.
The information collected,
Electronically via email; by mail or hand delivery in paper form.
Customers may incur postage costs when submitting the items covered by this collection to the USPTO by mail. The USPTO expects that 20 percent of the Recordkeeping Maintenance & Disclosure item; 0 percent of the Recordkeeping Maintenance Regarding Practitioners Under Suspension or Exclusion item; and 25 percent of the Complaint/Violation Reporting item will be submitted electronically. The USPTO further expects that of the non-electronic submissions for this collection, 1 percent of each item's total responses will be submitted by hand delivery and the rest will be submitted by mail, for a total of 187 mailed submissions.
The average first-class USPS postage cost for a one-pound mailed submission in a flat-rate envelope and a three-pound mailed submission in a small flat-rate box are $6.55 and $7.05, respectively. 25 percent of the mailed Recordkeeping Maintenance & Disclosure items are expected to require the more expensive flat-rate box mailing option, while all other items are expected to be mailed using the flat-rate envelope. Using these numbers, the USPTO estimates that the postage costs for the mailed submissions in this collection will total $1,244.35.
Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the total annual (non-hour) cost burden for this collection, in the form of postage costs, is $1,244.35 per year.
Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burdens.
Comments must be submitted on or before January 11, 2019.
Comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in OMB within 30 days of publication of this notice by either of the methods specified below. Please identify the comments by “OMB Control Numbers 3038-0023 and 3038-0072.”
•
•
A copy of all comments submitted to OIRA should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) by any of the following methods. The copies should refer to
•
• By Hand Delivery/Courier to the same address; or
• Through the Commission's website at
Please submit your comments using only one method. All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
A copy of the supporting statements for the collections of information discussed herein may be obtained by visiting
Christopher W. Cummings, Special Counsel, (202) 418-5445,
The Commission made three substantive changes to the Form 8-R that increased the existing information collection burden under the PRA: Two new questions were added to the “Fingerprint Card Information” section; a new question was added to the section titled “Disciplinary Information—Regulatory Disclosures;” and, lastly, one of the questions in the section titled “Disciplinary Information—Financial Disclosures” was expanded. Additionally, the revised Form 8-R also contains several other substantive modifications, as well as numerous grammatical, organizational and formatting changes.
The collections of information related to Form 8-R were previously approved by OMB in accordance with the PRA under OMB control numbers 3038-0023 and 3038-0072. In the 60-Day Notice, the Commission addressed the PRA implications of the changes to Commission Form 8-R. Specifically, the Commission estimated that the three substantive changes to Form 8-R discussed above together add 0.1 hours to the existing information collection burden associated with Form 8-R, currently 0.8 hours, resulting in a new collection burden of 0.9 hours for Form 8-R, subject to the additional change to the collection burden discussed below. The information requested in Form 8-R is necessary to assess the applicant's fitness to engage in business as a derivatives professional, subject to regulation and oversight by the Commission. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. As noted below, the Commission requested comments on the changes to Form 8-R.
Firms and individuals historically were required to use Form 3-R to update or change the registration information that they previously supplied on either a Form 7-R or 8-R. The Commission no longer requires firms and individuals to use Form 3-R. Updating registration information is now accomplished online, directly via electronic versions of Commission Forms 7-R or 8-R. In light of the obsolescence of Form 3-R, the Commission proposed in the 60-Day Notice to formally cancel the 3-R for PRA purposes, and to reassign to Forms 7-R and 8-R the information collection burdens that had been associated with Form 3-R.
The collection of information related to Form 3-R was previously approved by OMB in accordance with the PRA under OMB control number 3038-0023. The information collection burden associated with Form 3-R is 0.1 hours. In reassigning that burden to Forms 7-R and 8-R, the Commission believes that an additional 0.1 hours should be assigned to the Form 7-R and 8-R.
OMB control number 3038-0072 previously did not account for the burden hours associated with Form 3-R. The information collection burden for Form 8-R under OMB control number 3038-0072 should be modified to address the fact that the functionality of former Form 3-R now exists in the electronic version of Form 8-R. The Commission believes that the burden hours for Form 8-R should be increased by 0.1 hours under OMB control number 3038-0072 as well. Accordingly, the information collection burden for Form 8-R under OMB control number 3038-0072 is 1.0 hour, which consists of the previous estimate of 0.8 hours, plus an additional 0.1 hours associated with the amendments to the 8-R, and plus an additional 0.1 hours associated with the functionality that previously could be attributed to Form 3-R.
In the 60-Day Notice, the Commission requested comments on, among other things, its estimates regarding the modified information collection burdens associated with the amendments to Form 8-R and the cancellation of Form 3-R. The Commission did not receive any comments that addressed any of its estimates or any other aspect of the information collection.
The Commission estimates the burden of this collection of information under OMB control number 3038-0023 to be:
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
The Commission estimates the burden of this collection of information under OMB control number 3038-0072 to be:
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled AmeriCorps Member Application for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by January 11, 2019.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
(1) By fax to: 202-395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; or
(2) By email to:
Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Erin Dahlin, at 202-606-6931 or by email to
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Announcement of public meetings.
DoD is hosting several public meetings to obtain views of experts and interested parties in Government and the private sector regarding revising policies and procedures for contract financing, performance incentives, and associated regulations for DoD contracts.
• January 10, 2019, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., EST.
• January 22, 2019, from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., EST.
• February 19, 2019, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., EST.
• January 3, 2019, for the meeting on January 10th.
• January 15, 2019, for the meeting on January 22nd.
• February 12, 2019, for the meeting on February 19th.
Information on how to register for the public meetings is provided in the
The three public meetings will be held in the Mark Center Auditorium, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3603. The Mark Center Auditorium is located on level B-1 of the building.
Ms. Amy Williams, DPC/DARS, at 571-372-6106.
DoD is hosting several public meetings to obtain views of experts and interested parties in Government and the private sector regarding revising policies and procedures for contract financing, performance incentives, and associated regulations for DoD contracts.
(1) Full name.
(2) Valid email address.
(3) Valid telephone number.
(4) Company or organization name.
(5) Whether the individual is a U.S. citizen.
(6) The date(s) of the public meeting(s) the individual wishes to attend.
(7) Whether the individual intends to make a presentation, and, if so, the individual's title.
One valid government-issued photo identification card (
Attendees are encouraged to arrive at least 30 minutes prior to the start of the meeting to accommodate security procedures.
Public parking is not available at the Mark Center.
The TTY number for further information is: 1-800-877-8339. When the operator answers the call, let him or her know that the agency is the Department of Defense and the point of contact is Daniel Weinstein at 571-372-6105.
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), U.S. Department of Education.
Request for nominations to serve on the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI).
Per the authorizing legislation for the NACIQI, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education (Secretary) is seeking nominations for individuals to serve on the NACIQI.
Nominations must be received no later than Friday, January 11, 2019.
You may submit nominations, including attachments via email to:
NACIQI's Statutory Authority and Function: The NACIQI is established under Section 114 of the HEA, and is composed of 18 members appointed—
(A) On the basis of the individuals' experience, integrity, impartiality, and good judgment;
(B) From among individuals who are representatives of, or knowledgeable concerning, education and training beyond secondary education, representing all sectors and types of institutions of higher education; and
(C) On the basis of the individuals' technical qualifications, professional standing, and demonstrated knowledge in the fields of accreditation and administration of higher education.
The NACIQI meets at least twice a year and advises the Secretary with respect to:
• The establishment and enforcement of the standards of accrediting agencies or associations under subpart 2 of part H of Title IV, HEA.
• The recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations.
• The preparation and publication of the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations.
• The eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher education under Title IV of the HEA, together with recommendations for improvements in such process.
• The relationship between (1) accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and (2) State licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions.
• Any other advisory functions relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility that the Secretary may prescribe by regulation.
Nomination Process: Interested persons or organizations may nominate qualified individuals. To nominate an individual or yourself for appointment to the NACIQI, please submit the following information to the U.S. Department of Education.
• A cover letter addressed to the Secretary as follows: Honorable Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. In the letter, please state your reason(s) for nominating the individual or yourself;
• A copy of the nominee's or your current resume or curriculum vitae
• Contact information for the nominee (name, title, business address, business phone, and business email address)
In addition, the cover letter must include a statement affirming that the nominee (if you are nominating someone other than yourself) has agreed to be nominated and is willing to serve on the NACIQI if selected. Nominees should be broadly knowledgeable about higher education and accreditation.
Electronic Access to this Document: The official version of this document is published in the
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 11, 2019.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela, 202-502-7411 or email
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Take notice that on November 19, 2018, Magnolia LNG, LLC (Magnolia LNG), 1001 McKinney, Suite 600, Houston, Texas 77002, filed an application in Docket No. CP19-19-000, pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations seeking an amendment to the authorization granted by the Commission on April 15, 2016, in Docket No. CP14-347-000. Through its amendment application, Magnolia LNG seeks authorization from the Commission to increase the total liquefied natural gas production capacity of its liquefaction project from the currently authorized 8 million tons per annum (MTPA) to 8.8 MTPA, or 1.4 billion cubic feet per day. The facilities are located in Lake Charles, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, as more fully described in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Kinga Doris, Magnolia LNG, LLC, 1001 McKinney, Suite 600, Houston, Texas 77002, (713) 815-6921; or David L. Wochner, K&L Gates LLP, 1601 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 778-9000,
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 3 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must provide a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will be notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
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 on November 27, 2018, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia) 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed in Docket No. CP19-21-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.213 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Columbia's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-76-000, to construct and operate its Artemas A Storage Field New Wells Project (Project). The Project consists of three new directional storage wells and related pipelines and appurtenances at Columbia's Artemas A Storage Field, located in Bedford County, Pennsylvania.
Columbia states that the Project is part of the efforts to improve storage deliverability of the Artemas A Storage Field, as part of the Modernization II Settlement that it entered with its shippers. The Artemas A Storage Field currently consists of 17 active wells and is operated with a total capacity of 14.457 billion cubic feet (Bcf) consisting of 13.70 Bcf of certificated base and working gas, and approximately 0.757 Bcf of residual native gas. Columbia asserts that the Project could provide 58 to 79 Million cubic feet per day of restored deliverability to the Columbia storage system. Columbia avers that the proposed three new wells will be drilled at three of four potential well sites that are currently under evaluation and that the selection will depend upon which combination of sites will provide the desired restored deliverability with the least risk. Columbia states that it will notify the Commission of the three well sites selected for the Project prior commencement of construction. Columbia estimates the cost of the Project to be between $25.4 million to $28.2 million, depending upon which three of the four potential well sites are selected, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Linda Farquhar, Manager, Project Determinations & Regulatory Administration, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas, 77002-2700, by telephone at (832) 320-5685, by facsimile at (832) 320-6685, or by email at
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility 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:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the 261 Upgrade Projects involving construction and operation of facilities by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC (Tennessee Gas) in Agawam, Massachusetts and Suffield, Connecticut. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies about issues regarding the project. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.
You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Commission staff will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on October 19, 2018, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP19-7-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be determined by a judge in accordance with state law.
Tennessee Gas provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know? This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC website (
The Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. To sign up go to
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP19-7-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Tennessee Gas proposes to perform the following activities for construction of the Project to provide 72,400 million cubic feet per day (Mcf/d) of natural gas per day to meet existing subscribed shippers need for capacity.
The 261 Upgrade Projects would consist of the following facilities:
• Installation of 2.4 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline loop;
• installation of pig launcher and receiver facilities;
• installation of one new Solar Taurus compressor unit to replace two existing compressor units to be removed at Compressor station (CS) 261; and
• removal and replacement of one emergency generator.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the Project would disturb about 38.35 acres of land in Massachusetts and 8 acres in Connecticut for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline loop. Following construction, Tennessee Gas would maintain about 5.37 acres in Massachusetts for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. About 100 percent of the proposed pipeline loop would be co-located with Tennessee Gas's existing facilities, other utilities and roadways. This includes 71 percent of that pipeline loop that would overlap with the permanent easement of Tennessee Gas's Line 261B-100 or on Tennessee Gas owned CS 261 property, 10 percent that would overlap with other utilities and roadway corridors, and 19 percent that would be located adjacent to these corridors.
The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• threatened and endangered species;
• cultural resources;
• land use;
• air quality and noise;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts.
Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and
The EA will present Commission staffs' independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary
With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission is are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If the Commission issues the EA for an allotted public comment period, a
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located 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:
On December 6, 2018, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL19-12-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether the above-captioned entities' market-based rate authority in the Louisville Gas & Electric/Kentucky Utilities balancing authority area is just and reasonable.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL19-12-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL19-12-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
On December 4, 2018, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL19-15-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether Dominion Energy Fairless, LLC's proposed rate schedule for Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service may be unjust and unreasonable.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL19-15-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL19-15-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on December 4, 2018, pursuant to Rules 206 and 212 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and 385.212 (2018), and section 5 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. 717d(a) (2012), BP Energy Company, Equinor Natural Gas LLC and
Shell NA LNG LLC, (collectively, Complainants) filed a formal complaint against Dominion Energy Cove Point LNG, LP (Respondent), alleging that Respondent violated,
The Complainants certify that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of proposed extension of power, transmission and ancillary services formula rates.
Western Area Power Administration proposes to extend existing formula rates through September 30, 2024, for: Central Valley Project (CVP) power, transmission and ancillary service; California-Oregon Transmission Project transmission; Pacific Alternating Current Intertie transmission; and third-party transmission. The current rates expire on September 30, 2019.
The consultation and comment period will begin with the publication of this notice and will end on January 11, 2019. WAPA will accept written comments any time during the consultation and comment period.
Send written comments to: Mr. Arun Sethi, Power Marketing Manager, Sierra Nevada Region, Western Area Power Administration, 114 Parkshore Drive, Folsom, CA 95630-4710, or email
Ms. Autumn Wolfe, Rates Manager, Sierra Nevada Region, Western Area Power Administration, 114 Parkshore Drive, Folsom, CA 95630-4710, (916) 353-4686, or email
On July 14, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved Rate Order No. WAPA-173,
• CV-F13 (Base Resource and First Preference Power),
• CPP-2 (Custom Product Power),
• CV-T3 (Firm and Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service),
• CV-NWT5 (Network Integration Transmission Service),
• COTP-T3 (Firm and Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service),
• PACI-T3 (Firm and Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service),
• CV-TPT7 (Third-Party Transmission Service),
• CV-UUP1 (Unreserved Use Penalties),
• CV-RFS4 (Regulation and Frequency Response),
• CV-SPR4 (Spinning Reserves),
• CV-SUR4 (Supplemental Reserves),
• CV-EID4 (Energy Imbalance Service), and
• CV-GID1 (Generator Imbalance).
WAPA proposes to extend the existing formula rates, without any adjustments, for five years from October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2024. WAPA is taking action under 10 CFR 903.23(a).
These formula rates allow for recalculation of unit charges and revenue requirements at least annually. WAPA notifies customers of annual changes in writing, at customer meetings, and by posting on WAPA's website. The existing formula rates provide sufficient revenue to pay all annual costs, including interest expense, and repay required investments within the allowable period consistent with the cost recovery criteria set forth in DOE Order RA 6120.2.
Extending the rates through September 30, 2024, will: (1) Ensure continued cost recovery; (2) allow time to develop rates under the new power marketing plan effective January 1, 2025; and (3) provide WAPA and its customers time to evaluate the Bureau of Reclamation initiatives, including the final CVP Cost Allocation Study results and credits and offsets from the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
Effective November 19, 2016, the Secretary of Energy delegated, through Delegation Order No. 00-037.00B: (1) The authority to develop power and transmission rates to WAPA's Administrator; (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand or to disapprove such rates to FERC. Effective November 1, 2018, the Secretary of Energy delegated, through Delegation Order No. 00-002.00Q, the authority (on a non-exclusive basis) to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Under Secretary of Energy.
WAPA will not hold public information or public comment forums but is initiating a 30-day consultation and comment period in accordance with 10 CFR 903.23(a)(2). Written comments on the proposed rate extension must be received prior to the end of the consultation and comment period to be considered by WAPA in its decision process. WAPA will post comments received to its website,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Public Advisory Committee Teleconference.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the Good Neighbor Environmental Board (Board) will hold a public teleconference on December 19, 2018 from 12:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Due to unforeseen administrative circumstances, EPA is announcing this teleconference with less than 15 calendar days' notice. For further information regarding the teleconference and background materials, please contact Ann-Marie Gantner at the number and email provided below.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed modification to the general permit for construction stormwater discharges and request for public comment.
All ten Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regions today are proposing for public comment a
Comments on the proposed modification must be received on or before January 28, 2019.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0828 to the
For further information on the proposed modification, contact the appropriate EPA Regional office listed in Section I.F of this notice, or Emily Halter, EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management at tel.: 202-564-3324 or email:
This section is organized as follows:
The proposed modification described herein would not change the types of entities eligible to be covered under the 2017 CGP. The CGP would continue to be available to cover the following entities, as categorized in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS):
The EPA does not intend the preceding table to be exhaustive, but provides it as a guide for readers regarding the types of activities of which the Agency is now aware that could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your site could be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the definition of “construction activity” and “small construction activity” in existing EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x) and 122.26(b)(15), respectively. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed for technical information in the preceding
The proposed modification described herein would not change the scope of coverage under the 2017 CGP. Coverage
1.
2.
Electronic versions of this draft modified permit and draft modified fact sheet are available on the EPA's NPDES website at
An electronic version of the public docket is available through the EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
1.
The EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in the Agency's electronic public docket as the Agency receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. As noted previously, CBI information should not be submitted through
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to the EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in the EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in the EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
2.
To assist the EPA in reviewing and evaluating public comments, please consider the following tips and suggestions when preparing your comments for the Agency:
• Identify this draft modified permit by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Where possible, organize comments by referencing a paragraph or part of the draft modified permit or draft modified fact sheet, whichever applies.
• Explain as clearly as possible why you agree or disagree with the proposed modification.
• Suggest alternatives and substitute language for any requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
• Submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
Due to the limited scope of this proposed modification, the EPA has not scheduled any public hearings to receive public comment concerning the draft modified permit. All persons will continue to have the right to provide written comments during the public comment period. However, interested persons may request a public hearing pursuant to 40 CFR 124.12 concerning the draft modified permit. Requests for a public hearing must be sent or delivered in writing to the same address as provided above for public comments prior to the close of the comment period and must state the nature of the issue the requester would like raised in the hearing. Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.12, the EPA shall hold a public hearing if it finds, on the basis of requests, a significant degree of public interest in a public hearing on the draft modified permit. If the EPA decides to hold a public hearing, a public notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing will be made at least 30 days prior to the hearing. Any person may provide written or oral statements and data pertaining to the draft modified permit at the public hearing.
After the close of the public comment period, the EPA intends to issue a final decision on the permit modification. Any modification will not be issued until all significant comments have been considered and appropriate changes made to the draft modified permit. The EPA's responses to public comments received will be included in the docket as part of the final modification issuance. Any construction site operator
For EPA Region 1, contact Suzanne Warner at tel.: (617) 918-1383 or email at
For EPA Region 2, contact Stephen Venezia at tel.: (212) 637-3856 or email at
For EPA Region 3, contact Carissa Moncavage at tel.: (215) 814-5798 or email at
For EPA Region 4, contact Michael Mitchell at tel.: (404) 562-9303 or email at
For EPA Region 5, contact Brian Bell at tel.: (312) 886-0981 or email at
For EPA Region 6, contact Suzanna Perea at tel.: (214) 665-7217 or email at:
For EPA Region 7, contact Mark Matthews at tel.: (913) 551-7635 or email at:
For EPA Region 8, contact Amy Clark at tel.: (303) 312-7014 or email at:
For EPA Region 9, contact Eugene Bromley at tel.: (415) 972-3510 or email at
For EPA Region 10, contact Margaret McCauley at tel.: (206) 553-1772 or email at
Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) directs the EPA to regulate stormwater discharges under the NPDES program for certain designated sources, including discharges from regulated construction sites. The EPA's NPDES regulations further specify that permits are required for stormwater discharges from construction activities that disturb at least one acre, including sites that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale that will ultimately disturb at least one acre. See 40 CFR 122.26(a)(1)(ii), (a)(9)(i)(B), (b)(14)(x), and (b)(15)(i). Under the statutory and regulatory authority cited above, the EPA issued the final 2017 CGP on January 19, 2017 (82 FR 6534) and the permit became effective on February 16, 2017.
In accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, the 2017 CGP was considered issued for the purposes of judicial review on January 25, 2017. Within the 120-day period of judicial review under section 509(b) of the CWA, both the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) filed petitions for review of the 2017 CGP in the United States Court of Appeals in the D.C. Circuit.
After receiving the petitions for review, the EPA engaged in multiple discussions with both NAHB and CBF in which the parties discussed their concerns about certain permit requirements and how those requirements might be subject to confusion and misinterpretation by construction site operators permitted under the 2017 CGP. Through discussions with the petitioners, the following information was brought to the EPA's attention:
• In the current 2017 CGP, providing parenthetical examples within the definition of “operator” describing what type of party could be considered an operator “in most cases” may be confusing. See specifically Parts 1.1.1(a) and (b).
• The permit text for certain erosion and sediment control and pollution prevention permit requirements that implement the Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Construction & Development (40 CFR part 450) (referred to collectively as “the C&D rule”) may not adequately connect the permit requirements to controlling stormwater discharges as in the C&D rule.
• The explanation in the 2017 CGP regarding legal responsibility for permit compliance in situations where there are multiple operators may be unclear. The explanation for an instance where there are multiple operators at one construction site who each require permit coverage and who divide permit responsibilities among themselves, including the use and maintenance of a shared stormwater control (such as a sediment basin), may be misinterpreted to mean that each operator must perform every permit-related function, even if those responsibilities were by agreement performed by another operator. Additionally, references to joint and several liability in the current permit may have been an inaccurate way to explain what the permit compliance duties are for multiple operators who share implementation responsibilities under the permit.
Under 40 CFR 122.62(a)(2), the EPA may modify a permit if the Agency is presented with new information during the permit term that was not available at the time of issuance and would have justified the application of different permit conditions at the time of issuance. Based on the information the petitioners provided to the EPA following the issuance of the 2017 CGP, the Agency is proposing a permit modification to clarify the Agency's intent of the related permit requirements.
The proposed modification would remove examples of operators in the definition of operator; align three requirements that implement the C&D rule more closely with the ELG text (one requirement on minimizing dust, one on streambank erosion control, and one on building materials pollution prevention); and clarify the roles and responsibilities of individual operators in multiple operator arrangements. The proposed changes in this modification would simplify the permit language and accompanying fact sheet explanation but would not affect the substantive requirements, applicability, implementation, or enforceability of the permit's current requirements. Only those requirements that the EPA proposes to modify would be reopened in the draft modified permit for public comment (40 CFR 122.62). The proposed modification, if finalized, would replace the existing conditions in the 2017 CGP and relevant fact sheet sections subject to modification, but not affect any other terms and conditions of the permit.
In addition, the proposed modification would not affect the eligible coverage area, the number or type of entities eligible to be covered by the permit, nor the five-year permit term of the current 2017 CGP, which will expire on February 16, 2022. The current 2017 CGP remains in effect while the EPA pursues this proposed permit modification. The proposed modification is summarized in more detail below.
The EPA proposes the following specific changes to the 2017 CGP:
1.
After the EPA issued the final 2017 CGP, petitioners brought to the Agency's attention that adding the phrase “in most cases” followed by examples of who may be considered an operator might cause further confusion to a party trying to determine if it is an operator or not because those examples would not, in every instance, qualify as operators. For example, with respect to the language added to the Part 1.1.1(a) definition of operator (“
2.
• The current requirement in Part 2.2.6 (Minimize Dust) reads as follows: “On areas of exposed soil, the operator must minimize the generation of dust through the appropriate application of water or other dust suppression techniques.” The accompanying fact sheet discusses how this requirement is intended to minimize the discharge of sediment in stormwater from the generation of dust and how dust suppression techniques prevent dust from being generated, minimizing the potential for the dust to accumulate where it is likely to discharge from the site in stormwater discharges. To more precisely convey that dust control is important for preventing sediment from being discharged in stormwater, consistent with the C&D rule at 40 CFR 450.21(a)(5), the EPA proposes to modify the requirement to read, with the addition denoted in
• The current requirement in Part 2.2.11 (Minimize erosion of stormwater conveyance channels and their embankments . . .) reads as follows: “Minimize erosion of stormwater conveyance channels and their embankments, outlets, adjacent streambanks, slopes, and downstream waters. Use erosion controls and velocity dissipation devices within and along the length of any stormwater conveyance channel and at any outlet to slow down runoff to minimize erosion.” Footnote 24 to this requirement states: “Examples of velocity dissipation devices include check dams, sediment traps, riprap, and grouted riprap at outlets.” The accompanying fact sheet explains that this requirement implements the C&D ELG to “control stormwater volume and velocity to minimize soil erosion in order to minimize pollutant discharges” (40 CFR 450.21(a)(1)), to “control stormwater discharges. . . to minimize channel and streambank erosion and scour in the immediate vicinity of discharge points” (40 CFR 450.21(a)(2)), to “minimize the amount of soil exposed during construction activity” (40 CFR 450.21(a)(3)), and to “minimize the disturbance of steep slopes” (40 CFR 450.21(a)(4)). To streamline this requirement to more precisely focus on controlling stormwater discharges to minimize erosion at discharge points and to align it with the text of the C&D rule at 40 CFR 450.21(a)(2), the EPA proposes to modify the requirement to read as follows: “Control stormwater discharges, including both peak flowrates and total stormwater volume, to minimize channel and streambank erosion and scour in the immediate vicinity of discharge points.” Footnote 24 would be revised to read as follows: “Examples of control measures that can be used to comply with this requirement include the use of erosion controls and/or velocity dissipation devices (
• The current requirement in Part 2.3.3(a) regarding storage, handling, and disposal of building products, materials, and wastes reads as follows: “For building materials and building products, provide either (1) cover (
3.
In addition, the EPA proposes to clarify that operators who divide responsibilities do not have to duplicate permit-related functions if one operator is appropriately implementing the requirement for the rest of the operators to be in full compliance with the permit. In the proposed modification, the permit would state that, where there are multiple operators associated with the same site, they may develop a group Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) instead of multiple individual SWPPPs, but regardless of whether there is a group SWPPP or multiple individual SWPPPs, each operator is responsible for compliance with the permit's terms and conditions, notwithstanding how the SWPPP(s) may divide each operator's responsibilities. This would apply to a scenario where there are multiple operators associated with the same site through a common plan of development or sale (such as a housing development) at which a shared control exists. In this scenario, the operators may develop a group SWPPP instead of multiple individual SWPPPs, and divide amongst themselves various permit-related functions provided that each SWPPP, or a group SWPPP, documents which operator will perform each permit-related function, including those related to the installation and maintenance of the shared control. Regardless of whether there is a group SWPPP or multiple individual SWPPPs, all operators are legally responsible for compliance with the permit, notwithstanding how the SWPPP(s) may divide each operator's individual responsibilities. In other words, if Operator A relies on Operator B to satisfy its permit obligations, Operator A does not have to duplicate those permit-related functions if Operator B is implementing them for both operators to be in compliance with the permit. However, Operator A remains responsible for permit compliance if Operator B fails to implement any measures necessary for Operator A to comply with the permit. See Part 1.1.1, footnote 1; Part 7.1, footnote 53 (which the EPA now proposes to combine with footnote 52); the accompanying fact sheet explanation for these Parts; and Appendix A Definitions for “Shared Control” of the proposed modified permit.
Due to the narrow scope of this proposed permit modification and the focus on clarifying the intent of certain requirements rather than changing the underlying requirement itself, the EPA does not expect any change in economic impact from this proposed permit modification. It is therefore unnecessary for the EPA to revise the economic analysis that was prepared for the final 2017 CGP. A copy of the EPA's economic analysis, titled “Cost Impact Analysis for the 2017 Construction General Permit (CGP),” is available in the docket for this proposed permit modification.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this action is not significant under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4307h), the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations (40 CFR part 15), and the EPA's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR part 6), the Agency has determined that the modifications to the 2017 CGP are eligible for a categorical exclusion requiring documentation under 40 CFR 6.204(a)(1)(iv). This category consists of “actions involving reissuance of a NPDES permit for a new source providing the conclusions of the original NEPA document are still valid (including the appropriate mitigation), there will be no degradation of the receiving waters, and the permit conditions do not change or are more environmentally protective.” 40 CFR 6.204(a)(1)(iv). The EPA completed an Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) for the previous 2012 CGP and issued a categorical exclusion under 40 CFR 6.204(a)(1)(iv) for the 2017 reissuance. The EPA determined the analysis and conclusions regarding the potential environmental impacts, reasonable alternatives, and potential mitigation included in the EA/FONSI were still valid for the 2017 reissuance of the CGP because the permit conditions are either the same or, in some cases, are more environmentally protective.
As stated in Section II of this
Actions may be categorically excluded if the action fits within a category of action that is eligible for exclusion and the proposed action does not involve any extraordinary circumstances. The EPA has reviewed the proposed action and determined that the modification of the 2017 CGP does not involve any extraordinary circumstances listed in 40 CFR 6.204(b)(1)-(b)(10). Prior to the issuance of the final modification of the 2017 CGP, the EPA Responsible Official will document the application of the categorical exclusion and will make it available to the public on the Agency's website at
Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
Consistent with the EPA's previous determination for the 2017 CGP, this proposed modification to the 2017 CGP, if finalized, would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because the requirements in the draft modified permit would apply equally to all construction projects that disturb one or more acres in areas where the Agency is the permitting authority, and the erosion and sediment control proposed provisions increase the level of environmental protection for all affected populations.
This proposed action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed action.
In compliance with Executive Order 13175, the EPA consulted with tribal officials during the development of 2017 CGP to gain an understanding of and, where necessary, address any areas of the draft permit that may affect tribal interest. In the course of this consultation, the EPA conducted several outreach activities with tribal officials which are detailed in the
As part of this proposed modification, the EPA reviewed the tribal conditions that were incorporated into the 2017 CGP under Section 401 certifications to identify any requirements that this proposed action might affect. See Part 9 of the 2017 CGP. Only two tribal conditions reference a current permit requirement that is subject to this proposed modification, Part 2.2.11 (Minimize erosion of stormwater conveyance channels and their embankments . . .):
• The following condition applies only to discharges on the Pueblo of Isleta Reservation: “Under Minimize erosion, a permittee must secure permission from the Pueblo or affected Pueblo of Isleta land assignment owner if a dissipation device needs to be placed up- or down-elevation of a given construction site. CGP 2.2.11 at pg. 11.” See Part 9.4.2.1(j) of the 2017 CGP.
• The following condition applies only to discharges on the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Reservation: “To the extent feasible, utilize vegetated, upland areas of the site to infiltrate dewatering water before discharge. At all points where dewatering water is discharged, comply with the velocity dissipation requirements of Part 2.2.11 of EPA's 2017 General Construction Stormwater Permit. Examples of velocity dissipation devices include check dams, sediment traps, riprap, and grouted riprap at outlets.” See Part 9.7.4.4(i) of the 2017 CGP.
As stated in Section II of this
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
Dated: November 28, 2018.
Dated: November 28, 2018.
Dated: November 28, 2018.
Dated: November 28, 2018.
Dated: November 28, 2018.
Dated: November 28, 2018.
Dated: November 28, 2018.
Dated: November 28, 2018.
Dated: November 28, 2018.
Dated: November 28, 2018.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed stipulation; request for public comment.
In accordance with the EPA Administrator's October 16, 2017, Directive Promoting Transparency and Public Participation in Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements, notice is hereby given of a proposed joint stipulation and proposed stipulated notice of dismissal in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the case of Ellis, et al., v. Keigwin, et al., No. 3:13-cv-01266. On May 8, 2017, the court issued an order on summary judgment dismissing claims against EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), but finding that EPA failed to perform duties mandated by the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) regarding 59 EPA-approved pesticide products containing either of the insecticidal active ingredients clothianidin or thiamethoxam. The parties are proposing to reach a settlement in the form of a joint stipulation on the appropriate remedy for the court's finding of liability. Among other provisions, the joint stipulation would set a June 30, 2022, deadline for EPA to complete ESA effects determination for EPA's registration reviews of clothianidin and thiamethoxam and, as appropriate, request initiation of any ESA consultations with FWS that EPA may determine to be necessary as a result of those effects determinations. EPA is also taking comment on a proposed stipulated notice of dismissal that would be entered with the court following execution of the joint stipulation.
Written comments on the proposed joint stipulation and stipulated notice of dismissal must be received by January 11, 2019.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OGC-2018-0745 online at
Mark Dyner, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Law Office (2333A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-1754; email address:
On March 21, 2013, Plaintiffs (several beekeepers and public interest organizations) filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs brought claims alleging that EPA had improperly denied a petition to suspend products containing clothianidin and that EPA's registration of certain clothianidin and thiamethoxam products violated certain registration requirements of FIFRA, and violated section 7(a)(2) of the ESA because EPA had failed to consult with FWS prior to issuing the registrations. On May 8, 2017, the court granted EPA's summary judgment motion with respect to the FIFRA claims and partially granted Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion with respect to the ESA claims, finding that EPA had failed to comply with the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) with respect to 59 clothianidin and thiamethoxam products. In its order, the court also directed the parties to develop a briefing schedule for determining the appropriate remedy and, concurrently, to schedule a settlement conference to determine whether the parties could settle the remedy proceeding outside of court.
The proposed stipulation and stipulated notice of dismissal would settle the remedy proceeding. Specifically, paragraph two of the proposed stipulation provides that EPA would agree to complete ESA effects determinations by June 30, 2022, for its FIFRA registration reviews of clothianidin and thiamethoxam and, as appropriate, request initiation of any necessary ESA consultations with the Services. As provided in paragraph three of the proposed stipulation, EPA would also agree to initiate informal consultation with the Services to begin an informal dialogue between the agencies prior to EPA completing its effects determinations.
In addition, as described in paragraph one of the proposed stipulation, defendant-intervenors Syngenta, Bayer and Valent (the registrants of products containing clothianidin and thiamethoxam) have agreed to request that EPA voluntarily cancel the following 12 specific products that contain either clothianidin or thiamethoxam under section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA:
1. Adage Premier Seedcare, EPA Reg. No. 100-1450.
2. Adage Deluxe, EPA Reg. No. 100-1449.
3. Avicta Complete Corn 500, EPA Reg. No. 100-1399.
4. TMX-MXM-FDL-TBZ FS, EPA Reg. No. 100-1426.
5. Inovate Seed Protectant, EPA Reg. No. 59639-176.
6. Inovate Neutral Seed Protectant Reg. No. 59639-187.
7. Emesto Quantum, EPA Reg. No. 264-1125.
8. Flower Rose & Shrub Care III, EPA Reg No. 72155-95.
9. V10170 0.25G GL, EPA Reg. No. 59639-164.
10. Meridian 0.14G, EPA Reg. No. 100-1346.
11. Meridian 0.20G, EPA Reg. No. 100-1341.
12. Aloft GC G Insecticide, Reg. No. 59639-214.
For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this document, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed joint stipulation and
The official public docket for this action (identified by EPA-HQ-OGC-2018-0745) contains a copy of the proposed stipulation and proposed order of dismissal. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.
An electronic version of the public docket is available on EPA's website at
EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.
You may submit comments as provided in the
If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Use of the
The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Wednesday, December 12, 2018 which is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC.
Because of the closure of the federal government for a National Day of Mourning for President George H.W. Bush on Wednesday, December 5, the Commission has determined that it is in the public interest to delay the onset of the sunshine period prohibition contained in Section 1.1203 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1203. Accordingly, consistent with Section 1.1200(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1200(a), the Commission has modified its rules so that the sunshine period prohibition will begin at 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, December 6, rather than at 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, December 5.
The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to:
Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from the Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the internet from the FCC Live web page at
For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the internet. To purchase these services, call (703) 993-3100 or go to
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for information.
The FDIC is seeking comment from interested parties regarding the FDIC's deposit insurance application process.
Comments must be received by February 11, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3064-ZA03, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The FDIC is responsible for maintaining stability and public confidence in the nation's financial system by insuring deposits, examining and supervising financial institutions for safety and soundness and consumer protection, making large and complex financial institutions resolvable, and managing receiverships. As part of this mission, the FDIC grants deposit insurance to newly formed institutions and to operating institutions that are not currently insured.
Section 5 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act), 12 U.S.C. 1815(a), requires any proposed depository institution seeking federal deposit insurance to file an application with the FDIC. In every case, the FDIC's review considers the statutory factors enumerated in Section 6 of the FDI Act, 12 U.S.C. 1816:
• The institution's financial history and condition,
• The adequacy of the institution's capital structure,
• The institution's future earnings prospects,
• The general character and fitness of the management of the institution,
• The risk presented by the institution to the Deposit Insurance Fund,
• The convenience and needs of the community to be served by the institution, and
• Whether the institution's corporate powers are consistent with the purposes of the FDI Act.
In general, the FDIC applies the same processes to the review of each deposit insurance application. However, because applications present a wide range of structures, strategies, and business models, each review focuses on the facts and circumstances presented in the application.
Within the context of the existing statutory framework, the FDIC is seeking comments regarding the deposit insurance application process, including with respect to the transparency and efficiency of the process, and any unnecessary burdens that have become a part of the process. The FDIC encourages comments from all interested members of the public, including but not limited to insured depository institutions, other financial institutions or companies, individual depositors and consumers, consumer groups, and other interested stakeholders.
The FDIC follows an established review process that is applied to all types of deposit insurance applications in order to inform the public and assure the fair treatment of all applicants. In broad terms, the deposit insurance application process includes pre-filing activities, application submission, and the FDIC's application review and processing.
The primary objective of the review process is to consider whether the proposed institution satisfies the statutory requirements. In general, deposit insurance will be granted if the FDIC is able to find favorably on each of the statutory factors, plus the considerations required by the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
The pre-filing activities generally include the earliest steps in a proposed institution's formation. These steps primarily involve identifying organizers, directors, and key officers; developing the business plan; determining the appropriate amount of capital to be raised; and engaging in one or more pre-filing meetings with staff from the FDIC and other relevant agencies. The FDIC also announced that organizers may obtain the FDIC's feedback on a draft deposit insurance proposal during the pre-filing period.
Following submission of an application, the FDIC will conduct an initial review to determine whether the application is substantially complete. If the application is substantially complete, the FDIC will accept the application for processing and, in coordination with the other relevant state and federal agencies, complete a detailed review of the application that includes a field investigation.
Depending on the application's characteristics and the findings with regard to the statutory factors, authority to act may reside at the Regional Office level, or may transfer to the FDIC's Washington Office or Board of Directors. Although the FDIC's processing time will vary depending on the unique characteristics of each proposal, the FDIC strives to act on applications within four months after being accepted as substantially complete.
The FDIC has provided a number of resources, accessible through the FDIC's website, to aid organizers and other interested parties in understanding the application process. A list of these resources can be found in Appendix A.
The FDIC seeks comments from interested parties on all aspects of the deposit insurance application process, including guidance and other issuances, the steps in the application process, and
1. What steps, if any, can the FDIC take to improve the de novo application process?
2. Are there any specific aspects or components of the application process that particularly discourage potential applicants from initiating or completing the application process?
3. Are there ways the FDIC could or should update or supplement existing resources to clarify expectations and promote a more transparent application process? If so, please provide details and support.
4. Are there any aspects of the pre-filing process, including with respect to the newly announced process regarding draft deposit insurance proposals, that could be modified or enhanced to further clarify expectations or processes for prospective applicants and improve applicants' ability to submit a substantially complete application?
5. How effective is the application form and its related instructions? Could any elements of the form or instructions be modified or enhanced to improve applicants' ability to submit a substantially complete application?
6. Are there any aspects of the field investigation process that could be improved to better facilitate completion of the application process?
7. In what ways could or should the FDIC modify the application process for proposed traditional community banks? How would any suggested changes impact the evaluation of the statutory factors?
8. In what ways could or should the FDIC modify the application process for proposed institutions that are not traditional community banks? How would any suggested changes impact the evaluation of the statutory factors?
9. Are there ways the FDIC could or should tailor its evaluation of applications from proposed institutions that are not traditional community banks, consistent with the statutory factors as described in the FDIC Statement of Policy on Applications for Deposit Insurance (SOP)? If so, please explain.
10. Are there ways the FDIC could or should support the continuing evolution of emerging technology and fintech companies as part of its application review process? Are there particular risks associated with any such proposals, and, if so, are there ways such risks could or should be mitigated?
11. Are the FDIC's expectations (as provided by the FDIC resources identified in this RFI) regarding capital adequacy and liquidity/funding for prospective applicants sufficiently clear and understandable? If not, what additional information or clarifications could the FDIC provide?
12. Are there legal, regulatory, economic, technological, or other factors separate from the application process that discourage potential applicants from submitting applications for deposit insurance that the FDIC should be aware of? If so, are there steps the FDIC could or should take to mitigate the impact of such factors?
13. Are there any other suggestions that the FDIC should consider for improving the effectiveness, efficiency, or transparency of the application process, or for addressing any other interests or concerns of stakeholders relative to the application process?
The following resources are accessible through the FDIC's public website (
• Part 303 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations, which outlines procedures for the submission and review of applications, including applications for deposit insurance.
• The Interagency Charter and Federal Deposit Insurance Application Form, which requests the information the chartering authority and FDIC need to evaluate the application. The application form provides general instructions, specific information fields, supplemental guidelines for business plans, and a template for financial schedules.
• The SOP, which informs the process by which FDIC staff evaluate the statutory factors described above.
• Questions and answers related to the SOP, issued on November 20, 2014, and on April 6, 2016, to help clarify expectations for applicants in developing deposit insurance proposals.
• The
• The
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
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice, request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites comment on a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Financial Statements for Holding Companies (FR Y-9 family of reports) (OMB No. 7100-0128), the Financial Statements of U.S. Nonbank Subsidiaries Held by Foreign Banking Organizations (FR Y-7N family of reports) (OMB No. 7100-0125), the Bank Holding Company Report of Insured Depository Institutions' Section 23A Transactions with Affiliates (FR Y-8) (OMB No. 7100-0126), the Financial Statements of U.S. Nonbank Subsidiaries of U.S. Holding Companies (FR Y-11 family of reports) (OMB No. 7100-0244), the Domestic Finance Company Report of Consolidated Assets and Liabilities (FR 2248) (OMB No. 7100-0005), the Financial Statements of Foreign Subsidiaries of U.S. Banking Organizations (FR 2314 family of reports) (OMB No. 7100-0073), the Quarterly Savings and Loan Holding Company Report (FR 2320) (OMB No. 7100-0345), the Weekly Report of Selected Assets and Liabilities of Domestically Chartered Commercial Banks and U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks (FR 2644) (OMB No. 7100-0075), and the Consolidated Report of Condition and Income for Edge and Agreement Corporations (FR 2886b) (OMB No. 7100-0086).
Comments must be submitted on or before February 11, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's website at
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, if approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public website at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Board's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Board's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Board should modify the proposal.
2.
5.
The Board proposes to (1) implement changes to address the revised accounting standards for the adoption of the current expected credit loss (CECL) methodology across all of the reports, (2) extend for three years through the normal delegated review process certain revisions to the FR Y-9C that the Board previously approved on a temporary basis
The proposed reporting changes related to CECL are tied to the revisions proposed in the CECL notice of proposed rulemaking (the CECL NPR)
The effective dates for adopting CECL vary depending on whether a firm is a public business entity (PBE), a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) report filer, or an early adopter. For institutions that are PBEs and also are SEC filers, as both terms are defined in U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP), the new credit losses standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, including interim periods within those fiscal years. For a PBE that is not an SEC filer, the credit losses standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2020, including interim periods within those fiscal years. For an institution that is not a PBE, the credit losses standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2020, and for interim period financial statements for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2021. For regulatory reporting purposes, early application of the new credit losses standard will be permitted for all institutions for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. See Appendix A for more details surrounding CECL adoption by entity type, as well as the table summarizing the possible effective dates.
Due to the different effective dates for ASU 2016-13, the period over which institutions may be implementing this ASU ranges from the first quarter of 2019 through the fourth quarter of 2022. December 31, 2022, will be the first quarter-end of which all institutions would be required to prepare their reports in accordance with ASU 2016-13. It is expected that the majority of institutions will implement the standard in the first or fourth quarter of 2021. Schedule titles or specific data item captions resulting from the change in nomenclature upon the adoption of CECL generally would not be reflected in the reporting forms until March 31, 2021, as outlined in the following schedule-by-schedule descriptions of the proposed changes to the affected reporting schedules.
Because of the staggered adoption dates, the Board proposes to implement the CECL revisions in stages. First, the Board would revise the reporting form and instructions, add data items and schedules for certain impacted reports effective for March 31, 2019. The changes would include guidance stating how institutions that have adopted ASU-2016-13 would report the data items related to the “provision for credit losses” and “allowance for credit losses, as applicable. Next, for the transition period from March 31, 2021, through December 31, 2022, the reporting form and instructions for each impacted schedule title or data item would be updated to include guidance stating how institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-13 would report the “provision for loan and lease losses” or the “allowance for loan and lease losses,” as applicable. The table below summarizes the effective dates for the 2019 and 2021 proposed CECL revisions.
The proposed non-CECL related revisions to the FR Y-9C and FR 2886b reports would be effective for the March 31, 2019, report date.
In June 2016, the Financial Accounting Standard Board (FASB) issued ASU 2016-13, which introduced the CECL methodology for estimating allowances for credit losses and added Topic 326, Credit Losses, to the Accounting Standards Codification (ASC). The new credit losses standard changes several aspects of existing U.S. GAAP, such as introducing a new credit loss methodology, reducing the number of credit impairment models, replacing the concept of purchased credit-impaired (PCI) assets with that of purchased credit-deteriorated (PCD) financial assets, and changing the impairment treatment for available-for-sale (AFS) securities. See Appendix B for more details on each of these U.S. GAAP changes as a result of ASU 2016-13.
The Board is proposing revisions to all regulatory reports listed in this document in response to ASU 2016-13 in order to align the information reported with the new standard as it relates to the credit losses for loans and leases, including off-balance sheet credit exposures. These revisions address the broadening of the scope of financial assets for which an allowance for credit losses assessment must be established and maintained, along with the elimination of the existing model for PCI assets. The revisions for the FR Y-9C are described in detail, mostly on a schedule-by-schedule basis in the Detailed discussion of Proposed Revisions. The CECL revisions to all the other reports will mirror the revisions to the FR Y-9C, where applicable.
CECL is applicable to all financial instruments carried at amortized cost (including loans held for investment (HFI) and held to maturity (HTM) debt securities as well as trade and reinsurance receivables and receivables that relate to repurchase agreements and securities lending agreements), net investments in leases, and off-balance-sheet credit exposures not accounted for as insurance, including loan commitments, standby letters of credit, and financial guarantees. Under ASU 2016-13, institutions will record credit losses through an allowance for credit losses for AFS debt securities rather than as a write-down through earnings for other-than-temporary impairment (OTTI). The broader scope of financial assets for which allowances must be estimated under ASU 2016-13 results in the proposed reporting of additional allowances, and related charge-off and recovery data and proposed changes to the terminology used to describe allowances for credit losses. To address the broader scope of assets that will have allowances under ASU 2016-13, the Board proposes to change the allowance nomenclature to consistently use “allowance for credit losses” followed by the specific asset type as relevant,
By broadening the scope of financial assets for which the need for allowances for credit losses must be assessed to include HTM and AFS debt securities, the new standard eliminates the existing OTTI model for such securities. Subsequent to a firm's adoption of ASU 2016-13, the concept of OTTI will no longer be relevant and information on OTTI will no longer be captured.
The new standard also eliminates the separate impairment model for PCI loans and debt securities. Under CECL, credit losses on PCD financial assets are subject to the same credit loss measurement standard as all other financial assets carried at amortized cost. Subsequent to an institution's adoption of ASU 2016-13, information on PCI loans will no longer be captured.
While the standard generally does not change the scope of off-balance sheet credit exposures subject to an allowance for credit loss assessment, the standard does change the period over which the firm should estimate expected credit losses. For off-balance sheet credit exposures, a firm will estimate expected credit losses over the contractual period in which they are exposed to credit risk. For the period of exposure, the estimate of expected credit losses should consider both the likelihood that funding will occur and the amount expected to be funded over the estimated remaining life of the commitment or other off-balance sheet exposure. In contrast to the existing practices, the FASB decided that no credit losses should be recognized for off-balance sheet credit exposures that are unconditionally cancellable by the issuer. The exclusion of unconditionally cancellable commitments from the allowance for credit losses assessment on off-balance sheet credit exposures requires clarification to applicable reporting instructions.
As of the new accounting standard's effective date, institutions will apply the standard based on the characteristics of financial assets as follows:
•
•
•
To address the broader scope of financial assets for which a provision will be calculated under ASU 2016-13, the Board proposes to revise Schedule HI, item 4, from “Provision for loan and lease losses” to “Provision for Credit losses on financial assets,” effective March 31, 2021. To address the elimination of the concept of OTTI by ASU 2016-13, effective December 31, 2022, the Board proposes to remove Schedule HI, Memorandum item 17, “Other-than-temporary impairment losses on held-to-maturity and available-for-sale debt securities recognized in earnings.” Under the new standard, institutions will recognize credit losses on HTM and AFS debt securities through an allowance for credit losses, and the Board proposes to collect information on the allowance for credit losses on these two categories of debt securities in Schedule HI-B as discussed below. From March 31, 2019, through September 30, 2022, the report form and instructions for Memorandum item 17 will include guidance stating that Memorandum item 17 is to be completed only by institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-13.
To address the broader scope of financial assets for which allowances will be calculated under ASU 2016-13 and for which charge-offs and recoveries will be applicable, the Board proposes to change the title of Schedule HI-B effective March 31, 2021, from “Charge-offs and Recoveries on Loans and Leases and Changes in Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses” to “Charge-offs and Recoveries on Loans and Leases and Changes in Allowance for Credit Losses.”
In addition, effective March 31, 2021, to address the change in allowance nomenclature arising from the broader scope of allowances under ASU 2016-13, the Board proposes to revise Schedule HI-B, Part I, Memorandum item 4, from “Uncollectible retail credit card fees and finance charges reversed against income (
To further address the broader scope of financial assets for which allowances will be calculated under ASU 2016-13, the Board proposes to revise Schedule HI-B, Part II, to also include changes in the allowances for credit losses on HTM and AFS debt securities. Effective March 31, 2019, the Board proposes to change the title of Schedule HI-B, Part II, from “Changes in Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses” to “Changes in Allowances for Credit Losses.”
In addition, effective March 31, 2019, Schedule HI-B, Part II, would be expanded from one column to a table with three columns titled:
From March 31, 2019, through September 30, 2022, the reporting form and the instructions for Schedule HI-B, Part II, would include guidance stating that Columns B and C are to be completed only by institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13.
In addition, effective March 31, 2019, Schedule HI-B, Part II, item 4, will be revised from “Less: Write-downs arising from transfers of loans to a held-for-sale account” to “Less: Write-downs arising from transfers of financial assets” to capture changes in allowances from transfers of loans from held-to-investment to held-for-sale and from transfers of securities between categories,
Effective March 31, 2019, or the first quarter in which a holding company reports its adoption of ASU 2016-13, whichever is later, Schedule HI-B, Part II, item 6, “Adjustments,” would be used to capture the initial impact of applying ASU 2016-13 as of the effective date in the period of adoption as well as the initial allowance gross-up for PCD assets as of the effective date. Item 6 also would be used to report the allowance gross-up upon the acquisition of PCD assets on or after the effective date. These adjustments would be explained in items for which preprinted captions would be provided in the text fields on the Notes to the Income Statement, as proposed below.
In the memorandum section of Schedule HI-B, Part II, to address the change in allowance nomenclature arising from the broader scope of allowances under ASU 2016-13 the Board proposes to revise the caption for Memorandum item 3, effective March 31, 2021, from “Amount of allowance for loan and lease losses attributable to retail credit card fees and finance charges” to “Amount of allowance for credit losses on loans and leases attributable to retail credit card fees and finance charges.” Also, in the memorandum section of Schedule HI-B, Part II, effective December 31, 2022, the Board proposes to remove existing Memorandum item 4, “Amount of allowance for post-acquisition credit losses on purchased credit impaired loans accounted for in accordance with AICPA Statement of Position 03-3” as ASU 2016-13 eliminates the concept of PCI loans and the separate credit impairment model for such loans. From March 31, 2019, through September 30, 2022, the reporting form and instructions for Schedule HI-B, Part II, Memorandum item 4, would specify that this item should be completed only by institutions that have not yet adopted ASU 2016-13.
Given that the scope of ASU 2016-13 is broader than the three financial asset types proposed to be included in the table in Schedule HI-B, Part II, effective March 31, 2019, the Board proposes to also add new Memorandum item 5, “Provisions for credit losses on other financial assets carried at amortized cost,” and Memorandum item 6, “Allowance for credit losses on other financial assets carried at amortized cost,” to Schedule HI-B, Part II, at the same time. For purposes of Memorandum items 5 and 6, other financial assets would include all financial assets measured at amortized cost other than loans and leases held for investment and HTM debt securities. From March 31, 2019, through September 30, 2022, the reporting form and instructions for Schedule HI-B, Part II, would include guidance stating that Memorandum items 5 and 6 are to be completed only by institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13.
Schedule HI-C currently requests allowance information for specific categories of loans held for investment that is disaggregated on the basis of three separate credit impairment models, and the amounts of the related
To capture disaggregated data on allowances for credit losses from institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13, the Board proposes to create Schedule HI-C, Part II, “Disaggregated Data on Allowances for Credit Losses,” effective March 31, 2019. The existing table in Schedule HI-C, which includes items 1 through 6 and columns A through F, would be renamed “Part I. Disaggregated Data on the Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses.” From March 31, 2019, through September 30, 2022, the reporting form and instructions for Schedule HI-C, Part I, would include guidance stating that only those institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-13 should complete Schedule HI-C, Part I.
The proposed Part II of this schedule would contain the six loan portfolio categories and the unallocated category for which data are currently collected in existing Schedule HI-C along with the following portfolio categories for which allowance information would begin to be reported for HTM debt securities:
1. Securities issued by states and political subdivisions in the U.S.
2. Mortgage-backed securities (MBS) (including collateralized mortgage obligations, real estate mortgage investment conduit, and stripped MBS).
a. Mortgage-backed securities issued or guaranteed by U.S. Government agencies or sponsored agencies.
b. Other mortgage-backed securities.
3. Asset-backed securities and structured financial products.
4. Other debt securities.
5. Total.
For each category of loans in Part II of Schedule HI-C, institutions would report the amortized cost and the allowance balance in Columns A and B, respectively. The amortized cost amounts to be reported would exclude the accrued interest receivable that is reported in “Other assets” on the balance sheet. For each category of HTM debt securities in Part II of Schedule HI-C, institutions would report the allowance balance. The amortized cost and allowance information on loans and the allowance information on HTM debt securities would be reported quarterly and would be completed only by institutions with $1 billion or more in total assets, as is currently done with existing Part I of Schedule HI-C.
The Board will use the securities-related information gathered in proposed Part II of the schedule to monitor the allowance levels for the categories of HTM debt securities specified above. Further, with the proposed removal of FR Y-9C item for OTTI losses recognized in earnings (Schedule HI, Memorandum item 17), proposed Schedule HI-C, Part II, will become another source of information regarding credit losses of HTM debt securities, in addition to data proposed to be reported in Schedule HI-B, Part II. From March 31, 2019, through September 30, 2022, the reporting form and instructions for Schedule HI-C, Part II, would include guidance stating that only those institutions with $1 billion or more in total assets that have adopted ASU 2016-13 should complete Schedule HI-C, Part II.
In addition, effective December 31, 2022, the Board proposes to remove the existing Schedule HI-C, Part I. Schedule HI-C, Part II, would then be the only table remaining within this schedule and the “Part II” designation would be removed.
Effective March 31, 2021, the Board proposes to address the broader scope of financial assets for which a provision will be calculated under ASU 2016-13. From March 31, 2019, through September 30, 2022, the reporting form and instructions for line item 4, “Provision for loan and lease losses,” would include guidance that only institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13 should report the provision for credit losses in this item. Effective March 31, 2021, the Board proposes to revise line item 4 from “Provision for Loan and Lease losses” to “Provision for Credit Losses.”
Effective March 31, 2019, the Board proposes to add a preprinted caption to the text field that would be titled “Adoption of Current Expected Credit Losses Methodology—ASC Topic 326.” Institutions will use this item to report the cumulative-effect adjustment (net of applicable income taxes) recognized in retained earnings for the changes in the allowances for credit losses on financial assets and off-balance sheet credit exposures as of the beginning of the fiscal year in which the institution adopts ASU 2016-13. Providing a preprinted caption for this data item, rather than allowing each holding company to enter its own description for this cumulative-effect adjustment, will enhance the Board's ability to compare the impact of the adoption of ASU 2016-13 across institutions. From March 31, 2019, through December 31, 2022, the reporting form and instructions for Notes to the Income Statement, would specify that this item is to be completed only in the quarter-end FR Y-9C for the remainder of the calendar year in which a holding company adopts ASU 2016-13. The Board anticipates that this preprinted caption would be removed after all holding companies have adopted ASU 2016-13.
To address the broader scope of financial assets for which an allowance will be maintained under ASU 2016-13, effective March 31, 2019, the Board proposes to add two preprinted captions to the text field that would be titled “Initial allowances for credit losses recognized upon the acquisition of purchased deteriorated assets on or after the effective date of ASU 2016-13” and “Effect of adoption of current expected credit losses methodology on allowances for credit losses on loans and leases held for investment and held-to-maturity debt securities.” The latter of these preprinted captions would be used to capture the change in the amount of allowances from initially applying ASU 2016-13 on these two categories of assets as of the effective date of the accounting standard in the period of adoption, including the initial gross-up for any PCD assets held as of the effective date. From March 31, 2019, through September 30, 2022, the reporting form and instructions would specify that these items are to be completed only by holding companies that have adopted ASU 2016-13 and, for the latter preprinted caption, only in the quarter-end FR Y-9C report for the remainder of the calendar year in which an institution adopts ASU 2016-13. The Board anticipates the latter preprinted caption would be removed after all institutions have adopted ASU 2016-13.
To address the broader scope of financial assets for which allowances will be estimated under ASU 2016-13, the Board proposes revisions to the reporting form and instructions to specify which assets should be reported net of an allowance for credit losses on the balance sheet and which asset categories should be reported gross of such an allowance. The Board determined that the only financial asset category for which separate (
Effective March 31, 2021, the Board proposes to revise Schedule HC, item 2.a, from “Held-to-maturity securities” to “Held-to-maturity securities, net of allowance for credit losses.” From March 31, 2019, through December 31, 2020, the Board proposes to add a footnote to Schedule HC, item 2.a, specifying that holding companies should “report this amount net of any applicable allowance for credit losses.” Additionally, for Schedule HC, item 3.b, “Securities purchased under agreements to resell,” and Schedule HC, item 11, “Other assets,” effective March 31, 2019, the Board proposes to add a footnote to these items specifying that holding companies should “report this amount net of any applicable allowance for credit losses.” From March 31, 2019, through September 30, 2022, the reporting form and the instructions for Schedule HC, items 2.a, 3.b, and 11, would specify that reporting such items net of any related allowances for credit losses is applicable only to those institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13. Given that AFS debt securities are carried on Schedule HC at fair value, the Board is not proposing any changes to Schedule HC, item 2.b, “Available-for-sale securities,” and instead propose reporting allowances for credit losses on AFS debt securities only in Schedule HI-B, Part II.
In addition, to address the change in allowance nomenclature arising from the broader scope of allowances under ASU 2016-13, the Board proposes to revise Schedule HC, item 4.c, from “LESS: Allowance for loan and lease losses” to “LESS: Allowance for credit losses on loans and leases” effective March 31, 2021. Effective March 31, 2019, the Board proposes to add a footnote to this item specifying that institutions who have adopted ASU 2016-13 should report the allowance for credit losses on loans and leases in this item.
Effective March 31, 2019, the Board proposes to revise the instructions to Schedule HC-B to clarify that for institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13, allowances for credit losses should not be deducted from the amortized cost amounts reported in columns A and C of this schedule.
Effective March 31, 2021, to address the change in allowance nomenclature, the Board proposes to revise the reporting form and the instructions for Schedule HC-C by replacing references to the allowance for loan and lease losses in statements indicating that the allowance should not be deducted from loans and leases in this schedule with references to the allowance for credit losses. Thus, loans and leases will continue to be reported gross of any allowances or allocated transfer risk reserve in Schedule HC-C.
In addition, to address the elimination of PCI assets by ASU 2016-13, the Board proposes to remove Schedule HC-C, Part I, Memorandum items 5.a and 5.b, in which institutions report the outstanding balance and balance sheet amount, respectively, of PCI loans held for investment effective December 31, 2022. The agencies determined that these items were not needed after the transition to PCD loans under ASU 2016-13 because the ASU eliminates the separate credit impairment model for PCI loans and applies CECL to all loans held for investment measured at amortized cost. From March 31, 2019, through September 30, 2022, the reporting form and the instructions for Schedule HC-C, Memorandum items 5.a and 5.b, would specify that these items should be completed only by institutions that have not yet adopted ASU 2016-13.
Additionally, since ASU 2016-13 supersedes ASC 310-30, the Board proposes to revise Schedule HC-C, Memorandum item 12, “Loans (not subject to the requirements of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Statement of Position 03-3) and leases held for investment that were acquired in business combinations with acquisition dates in the current calendar year,” effective December 31, 2022. As revised, the loans held for investment to be reported in Memorandum item 12 would be those not considered purchased credit deteriorated per ASC 326. From March 31, 2019, through September 30, 2022, the Board proposes to revise the reporting form and the instructions for Schedule HC-C, by adding a statement explaining that, subsequent to adoption of ASU 2016-13, a holding company should report only loans held for investment not considered purchased credit deteriorated per ASC 326 in Schedule HC-C, Memorandum item 12.
To address the broader scope of financial assets for which an allowance will be applicable under ASU 2016-13, the Board proposes to specify that assets within the scope of the ASU that are included in Schedule HC-F should be reported net of any applicable allowances for credit losses. Effective March 31, 2019, the Board proposes to revise the reporting form and the instructions for Schedule HC-F by adding a statement explaining that, subsequent to adoption of ASU 2016-13, a holding company should report asset amounts in Schedule HC-F net of any applicable allowances for credit losses.
In addition, effective March 31, 2019, the Board is proposing to add a footnote to item 1, “Accrued interest receivable” on the reporting form and a statement to the instructions for item 1 that specifies that holding companies should exclude from this item any accrued interest receivables that is reported elsewhere on the balance sheet as part of the related financial asset's amortized cost.
To address ASU 2016-13's exclusion of off-balance sheet credit exposures that are unconditionally cancellable from the scope of off-balance sheet credit exposures for which allowances for credit losses should be measured, the Board proposes to revise the reporting form and instructions for Schedule HC-G, item 3, “Allowance for credit losses on off-balance-sheet credit exposures,” effective March 31, 2019. As revised, the reporting form and instructions would state that holding companies that have adopted ASU 2016-13 should report in item 3 the allowance for credit losses on those off-balance sheet credit exposures that are not unconditionally cancellable.
Effective March 31, 2019, the Board proposes to revise the instructions to Schedule HC-K to clarify that, for institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13, allowances for credit losses should not be deducted from the related amortized cost amounts when calculating the quarterly averages for all debt securities.
To address the elimination of PCI assets by ASU 2016-13, the Board proposes to remove Schedule HC-N, Memorandum items 9.a and 9.b, in which institutions report the outstanding balance and balance sheet amount, respectively, of past due and nonaccrual PCI loans effective December 31, 2022. The Board determined that these items were not needed for PCD loans under ASU 2016-13 given that the ASU eliminates the separate credit impairment model for PCI loans and applies CECL to PCD loans and all other loans held for investment measured at amortized cost. From March 31, 2019, through September 30, 2022, the reporting form and the instructions for Schedule HC-N, Memorandum items 9.a and 9.b, would specify that these items should be completed only by holding companies that have not yet adopted ASU 2016-13.
In connection with the agencies' recently issued proposed rule on implementation of CECL and related transition for regulatory capital (CECL NPR),
The CECL NPR would introduce a newly defined regulatory capital term, allowance for credit losses (ACL), which would replace allowance for loan and lease losses (ALLL), as defined under the capital rules, for holding companies that adopt CECL. The CECL NPR also proposes that credit loss allowances for PCD assets held by these holding companies would be netted when determining the carrying value, as defined in the CECL NPR, and, therefore, only the resulting net amount would be subject to risk-weighting. In addition, under the CECL NPR, the agencies are proposing to provide institutions the option to phase in over a three-year period beginning with the institution's CECL effective date the day-one regulatory capital effects that may result from the adoption of ASU 2016-13.
In general, under the CECL NPR, holding companies that have adopted CECL would report ACL amounts in Schedule HC-R items instead of ALLL amounts that are currently reported. Effective December 31, 2022, the Board is proposing to remove references to ALLL and replace them with references to ACL on the reporting form for Schedule HC-R. From March 31, 2019, through September 30, 2022, the Board is proposing to revise the instructions to Schedule HC-R to direct institutions that have adopted CECL to use ACL instead of ALLL in calculating regulatory capital. The instructional revisions would affect Schedule HC-R, Part I. Regulatory Capital Components and Ratios, item 30.a, “Allowance for loan and lease losses includable in tier 2 capital,” and Schedule HC-R, Part II. Risk-Weighted Assets, items 6, “LESS: Allowance for loan and lease losses,” 26, “Risk-weighted assets for purposes of calculating the allowance for loan and lease losses 1.25 percent threshold,” 28, “Risk-weighted assets before deductions for excess allowance of loan and lease losses and allocated risk transfer risk reserve,” and 29, “LESS: Excess allowance for loan and lease losses.”
In addition, under the CECL NPR, assets and off-balance sheet credit exposures for which any related credit loss allowances are eligible for inclusion in regulatory capital would be calculated and reported in Schedule HC-R Part II. Risk-Weighted Assets on a gross basis. Therefore, the Board is proposing to revise the instructions for Schedule HC-R, Part II. Risk-Weighted Assets, items 2.a, “Held-to-maturity securities”; 3.b., “Securities purchased under agreements to resell”; 5.a., “Residential mortgage exposures” held for investment; 5.b, “High volatility commercial real estate exposures” held for investment; 5.c, Held-for-investment “Exposures past 90 days or more or on nonaccrual”; 5.d, “All other exposures” held for investment; 8, “All other assets,” and 9.a, “On-balance sheet securitization exposures: Held-to-maturity securities”; to explain that holding companies that have adopted CECL should report and risk-weight their loans and leases held for investment, HTM securities, and other financial assets measured at amortized cost gross of their credit loss allowances, but net of the associated allowances on PCD assets.
In addition, effective March 31, 2019, the Board proposes to add a new Memorandum item 5 to, Schedule HC-R, Part II that would collect data by asset category on the “Amount of allowances for credit losses on purchased credit-deteriorated assets.” The amount of such allowances for credit losses would be reported separately for “Loans and leases held for investment” in Memorandum item 5.a, “Held-to-maturity debt securities” in Memorandum item 5.b, and, “Other financial assets measured at amortized cost” in Memorandum item 5.c. The instructions for Schedule HC-R, Part II, Memorandum item 5, would specify that these items should be completed only by holding companies that have adopted ASU 2016-13.
The Board also would include footnotes for the affected items on the forms to highlight the revised treatment of those items for institutions that have adopted CECL.
Under the CECL NPR, a holding company that experiences a reduction in retained earnings as of the effective date of CECL for the holding company as a result of the holding company's adoption of CECL may elect to phase in the regulatory capital impact of adopting CECL (electing institution). As described in the CECL NPR, an electing
During the CECL transition period, an electing institution would need to make adjustments to its retained earnings, temporary difference deferred tax assets (DTAs), ACL, and average total consolidated assets for regulatory capital purposes. An advanced approaches institution also would need to make an adjustment to its total leverage exposure. These adjustments are described in detail in the CECL NPR.
The Board is proposing to revise the instructions to Schedule HC-R, Part I, Regulatory Capital Components and Ratios, items 2, “Retained earnings”; 30.a, “Allowance for loan and lease losses includable in tier 2 capital”; and item 36, “Average total consolidated assets,”; as well as Schedule HC-R, Part II, Risk-Weighted Assets, item 8, “All other assets,” consistent with the adjustments to these items for the applicable transitional amounts as described in the CECL NPR for electing institutions to report the adjusted amounts. The Board also propose to include footnotes on the reporting forms to highlight the proposed changes to these items for electing institutions.
The Board proposes to clarify in the instructions effective March 31, 2019, that all assets of consolidated variable interest entities should be reported net of applicable allowances for credit losses by holding companies that have adopted ASU 2016-13. Net reporting on Schedule HC-V by such holding companies is consistent with the proposed changes to Schedules HC and HC-F. Similarly, effective March 31, 2019, the reporting form for Schedule HC-V will also specify that holding companies that have adopted ASU 2016-13 should report assets net of applicable allowances.
The Board proposes to make changes to the FR 2248, FR 2314/S, FR 2320, FR 2644, FR 2886b, FR Y-7N/NS, FR Y-8, FR Y-9LP, FR Y-9SP, and the FR Y-11/S report to mirror the FR Y-9C and Call report reporting revisions related to ASU 2016-13. The report forms and instructions will be revised to clearly indicate that HTM securities, Securities purchased under agreements to resell, and Other assets should be reported net of applicable allowance for credit losses for those institutions that have adopted the standard. Additionally, the Board proposes to indicate on the report form and instructions that institutions that have adopted the ASU 2016-13 should report “Allowance for credit losses on loans and leases” and “Provisions for credit losses for all applicable financial assets.”
To further address the broader scope of financial assets for which allowances will be calculated under ASU 2016-13, the Board proposes to revise the FR 2314/S, FR 2886b, FR Y-7N/NS, and the FR Y-11/S report to change the title caption from Changes in Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses” to “Changes in Allowances for Credit Losses” and add three columns titled:
On September 28, 2018, the Board, pursuant to its delegated authority,
Section 214 of EGRRCPA, which was enacted on May 24, 2018, added a new section 51 to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act) governing the risk-based capital requirements for certain acquisition, development, or construction (ADC) loans. EGRRCPA provides that, effective upon enactment, the federal banking agencies may only require a depository institution to assign a heightened risk weight to an HVCRE exposure if such exposure is an “HVCRE ADC Loan,” as defined in this new law.
Section 202 of EGRRCPA amended section 29 of the FDI Act to exclude a capped amount of reciprocal deposits from treatment as brokered deposits for qualifying institutions, effective upon enactment. The instructions for the FR Y-9C and the Call Report, consistent with the law prior to the enactment of EGRRCPA, previously treated all reciprocal deposits as brokered deposits. In amending section 29 of the FDI Act to exclude a capped amount of reciprocal deposits from treatment as brokered deposits for qualifying institutions, section 202 defines “reciprocal deposits” to mean “deposits received by an agent institution through a deposit placement network with the same maturity (if any) and in the same aggregate amount as covered deposits placed by the agent institution in other network member banks.” The terms “agent institution,” “deposit placement network,” “covered deposit,” and “network member bank,” all of which are used in the definition of “reciprocal deposit,” also are defined in section 202.
In particular, an “agent institution” is an FDIC-insured depository institution that meets at least one of the following criteria:
• The institution is well-capitalized
• The institution has obtained a waiver from the FDIC to accept, renew, or roll over brokered deposits pursuant to section 29(c) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1831f(c)); or
• The institution does not receive reciprocal deposits in an amount that is greater than a “special cap” (discussed below).
Under the “general cap” set forth in section 202, an agent institution may classify reciprocal deposits up to the lesser of the following amounts as non-brokered reciprocal deposits:
• $5 billion or
• An amount equal to 20 percent of the agent institution's total liabilities.
Any amount of reciprocal deposits in excess of the “general cap” would be treated as, and should be reported as, brokered deposits.
A “special cap” applies if an agent institution is either
To address the change in the treatment of HVCRE loans and certain reciprocal deposits under EGRRCPA, the agencies have made a number of revisions to the September 2018 Call instructions. In order to avoid the regulatory burden associated with applying different definitions for HVCRE exposures and reciprocal deposits within a single organization, the Board temporarily revised the FR Y-9C instructions so that they that are consistent with those changes to the Call Report. To assist holding companies in preparing the FR Y-9C for that report date, the revised FR Y-9C Supplemental Instructions include information regarding the reporting of HVCRE exposures and reciprocal deposits.
Specifically, the temporary revisions to the FR Y-9C report provide that (i) respondents are permitted to report brokered deposits (in Schedule HC-E Memorandum items 1 and 2) in a manner consistent with the provisions of EGRRCPA,
On the Notes to the Income Statement—Predecessor Financial Items, the Board is proposing to add a footnote to line item 6, Realized gains (losses) on held-to-maturity and available-for-sale securities to instruct holding companies to include realized and unrealized holding gains and losses in this item in order to implement the accounting change pertaining to equity securities under Accounting Standards Update (ASU No. 2016-01, “Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities”). This change is consistent with the changes to the Call Report
Effective March 31, 2019, the Board proposes to implement a number of revisions to the FR 2886b reporting requirements, most of which are proposed to align with changes implemented on the Call Report. The proposed changes include:
• Revisions to Schedule RC-R, Regulatory Capital, for banking Edge corporations,
• Revisions to the eligibility criteria for reporting Schedule RC-D, Trading Assets and Liabilities,
• Revisions to address changes in accounting for equity investments not held for trading, and
• Revisions to the reporting of equity investments accounted for under the equity method of accounting.
Effective January 1, 1993, banking Edge corporations became subject to capital adequacy guidelines under section 211.12(c) of Regulation K, International Banking Operations (12 CFR 211). According to Regulation K, banking Edge corporations must maintain a minimum total capital to total risk-weighted assets ratio of at least 10 percent, of which at least 50 percent must consist of Tier 1 capital. In order to assess compliance with the capital requirements of Regulation K, banking Edge corporations file FR 2886b Schedule RC-R, which currently consists of six items:
• Tier 1 capital allowable under the risk-based capital guidelines,
• Tier 2 capital allowable under the risk-based capital guidelines,
• Subordinated debt allowable as Tier 2,
• Total qualifying capital allowable under risk-based capital guidelines,
• Total risk-weighted assets and credit equivalent amounts of off-balance sheet items and
• Credit equivalent amounts of off-balance-sheet items.
In October of 2013, the Board and the OCC published the revised capital rules in the
From August of 2013 to February of 2015, the Board, in conjunction with the OCC and the FDIC, published initial and final notices in the
The Board proposes to remove all six existing items on FR 2886b Schedule RC-R, and replace them with four items that correspond to the risk-based capital rules under Regulation Q. The proposed revisions are similar to the revisions made on Call Report Schedule RC-R, albeit concerning fewer items. The Board believes these four items sufficiently assess risk-based capital adequacy for banking Edge corporations, and better align with the risk-based capital rules under Regulation Q. Specifically, the Board proposes to add the following items to FR 2886b Schedule RC-R:
• Tier 1 Capital allowable under Regulation Q,
• Tier 2 Capital allowable under Regulation Q,
• Total Capital allowable under Regulation Q and
• Total risk-weighted assets.
The Board proposes to change the reporting threshold for filing Schedule RC-D to Edges with total trading assets of $10 million or more in any of the four preceding calendar quarters, from the current threshold of $2 million. The Board no longer needs the information reported in this schedule from Edges with a lesser amount of trading assets.
In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-01, “Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities.” The Board proposes to revise the FR 2886b report form and instructions to account for the changes to U.S. GAAP set forth in ASU 2016-01 that are consistent with the changes made to the Call Report.
The changes to the accounting for equity investments under ASU 2016-01 will affect several existing data items in the FR 2886b. One outcome of the change in accounting for equity investments under ASU 2016-01 is the elimination of the concept of available-for-sale (AFS) equity securities, which are measured at fair value on the balance sheet with changes in fair value recognized through other comprehensive income. At present, the historical cost and fair value of AFS equity securities,
At present, the accumulated balance of the unrealized gains (losses) on AFS equity securities, net of applicable income taxes, that have been recognized through other comprehensive income is included in accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI), which is reported in the equity capital section of the FR 2886b balance sheet in Schedule RC, item 24. With the elimination of AFS equity securities on the effective date of ASU 2016-01, the net unrealized gains (losses) on these securities that had been included in AOCI will be reclassified (transferred) from AOCI into the retained earnings component of equity capital, which is reported on the FR 2886b balance sheet in Schedule RC, item 23. After the effective date, changes in the fair value of (
The effect of the elimination of AFS equity securities as a distinct asset category upon institutions' implementation of ASU 2016-01 carries over to the agencies' regulatory capital rules. Under these rules, institutions that are eligible to and have elected to make the AOCI opt-out election deduct net unrealized losses on AFS equity securities from common equity tier 1 capital and include 45 percent of pretax net unrealized gains on AFS equity securities in tier 2 capital. When ASU 2016-01 takes effect and the classification of equity securities as AFS is eliminated for accounting and reporting purposes under U.S. GAAP, the concept of unrealized gains and losses on AFS equity securities will likewise cease to exist.
Another outcome of the change in accounting for equity investments under ASU 2016-01 is that equity securities and other equity investments without readily determinable fair values that are within the scope of ASU 2016-01 and are not held for trading must be measured at fair value through net income, rather than at cost (less impairment, if any), unless the measurement election described above is applied to individual equity investments. In general, institutions currently report their holdings of such equity securities without readily determinable fair values as a category of other assets in FR 2886b Schedule RC, item 8 (item 8 is the total amount of an institution's other assets).
At present, AFS equity securities and equity investments without readily determinable fair values are included in the quarterly averages reported in Schedule RC-K. Institutions report the quarterly average of its total securities in item 7 of this schedule and this average reflects AFS equity securities at fair value and equity investments without readily determinable fair values at historical cost (item 7 is total assets; there is no breakout for securities on Schedule RC-K on the FR 2886b).
The Board has considered the changes to the accounting for equity investments under ASU 2016-01 and the effect of these changes on the manner in which data on equity securities and other equity investments are currently reported in the FR 2886b, which has been described above. Accordingly, the proposed revisions to the FR 2886b report form and instructions to address the equity securities accounting changes are as follows:
To provide transparency to the effect of unrealized gains and losses on equity securities not held for trading on an institution's net income during the year-to-date reporting period in Schedule RI, Income Statement, and to clearly distinguish these gains and losses from the rest of an institution's income (loss) from its continuing operations, Schedule RI, item 8, would be revised effective March 31, 2019, by creating new items 8.a, “Income (loss) before unrealized holding gains (losses) on equity securities not held for trading, applicable income taxes, and discontinued operations,” and 8.b, “Unrealized holding gains (losses) on equity securities not held for trading.” In addition to unrealized holding gains (losses) during the year-to-date reporting period on such equity securities with readily determinable fair values, institutions would also report in proposed new item 8.b the year-to-date changes in the carrying amounts of equity investments without readily determinable fair values not held for trading (
In Schedule RC, Balance Sheet, item 2, “Securities,” would be split into three items: Item 2.a: “Held-to-maturity securities, net of allowance for credit losses,” item 2.b: “Available-for-sale securities not held for trading,” and 2.c: “Equity securities with readily determinable fair values not held for trading,” effective March 31, 2019. From March 31, 2019, through September 30, 2020, the instructions for item 2.c and the reporting form for Schedule RC would include guidance stating that item 2.c is to be completed only by institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-01. Institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-01 would leave item 2.c blank. During this period, the instructions for items 2.a and 2.b would explain that institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-01 should include only debt securities in these items. Effective December 30, 2020, the caption for item 2.a would be revised to “Held-to-maturity debt securities, net of allowance for credit losses,” and the caption for item 2.b would be revised to “Available-for-sale debt securities not held for trading.” All institutions would report their holdings of equity securities with readily determinable fair values not held for trading in item 2.c.
In Schedule RC, item 8, Other Assets, the instructions would be revised to add language stating institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-01 should report “equity investments without readily determinable fair values” at fair value, effective March 31, 2019. Institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-01 would continue to report “equity securities that do not have readily determinable fair values” at historical cost. The types of equity securities and other equity investments currently reported in item 8 would continue to be reported in this item. However, after the effective date of ASU 2016-01 for an institution, the securities the institution reports in item 8 would be measured in accordance with the ASU.
In Schedule RC-B, item 3, “Equity interest in nonrelated organizations,” would be removed effective December 30, 2020. From March 31, 2019, through September 30, 2020, the instructions for item 3 and the reporting form for Schedule RC-B would include guidance stating that item 3 is to be completed only by institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-01. Institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-01 would leave item 3 blank.
Institutions that applied ASU 2016-01 in the first quarter of 2018 will need to report their holdings of equity securities and other equity investments in accordance with this accounting standard within the existing structure of the FR 2886b beginning with the March 31, 2018, report date. As a result, the Board provided interim guidance for the March 31, 2018, report date advising institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-01 to (1) report realized and unrealized holding gains (losses) on equity securities not held for trading in the appropriate subitem of either item 5 (noninterest income) or item 7 (noninterest expense) of Schedule RI (Income Statement), as applicable. In addition to realized and unrealized holding gains (losses) during the year-to-date reporting period on such equity investments with readily determinable fair values, institutions should also report in Schedule RI, item 5 or 7, as applicable, the year-to-date carrying amounts of equity investments without readily determinable fair values not held for trading (
The instructions for Schedule RC-B, item 3, “Equity interest in nonrelated organizations,” currently state to include investments that represent 20 percent to 50 percent of the voting shares of an organization accounted for under the equity method of accounting, and these investments are reported as either held-to-maturity or available-for-sale. Upon review, it was determined this treatment is not in compliance with U.S. GAAP, as investments accounted for under the equity method of accounting should not be classified as either held-to-maturity or available-for-sale. Guidance on securities accounted for under the equity method is provided in ASC Subtopic 323-10, Investments—Equity Method and Joint Ventures- Overall. To become U.S. GAAP compliant and to align with the reporting on the Call Report, the Board proposes to revise the instructions to indicate investments that represent 20 percent to 50 percent of the voting shares of an organization accounted for under the equity method of accounting should no longer be included in Schedule RC-B, item 3, but rather included in Schedule RC, item 8, “Other assets.”
In addition, Schedule RC-B, item 3, columns A and B, Amortized Cost and Fair Value of Held-to-maturity equity interest in nonrelated organizations, respectively, would be discontinued effective March 31, 2019, as these items are no longer needed by the Board. Columns C and D, Amortized Cost and Fair value of Available-for-sale securities, would remain on the form and continue to be collected until December 31, 2020, when all institutions must comply with ASU 2016-01 (see description of proposed revisions due to ASU 2016-01 for more information).
With respect to the FR Y-9LP, FR Y-9SP, FR Y-9ES, FR Y-9CS, as well as most items on the FR Y-9C, the information collected would generally not be accorded confidential treatment. If confidential treatment is requested by a respondent, the Board will review the request to determine if confidential treatment is appropriate.
With respect to the FR Y-9C, Schedule HI's item 7(g) “FDIC deposit insurance assessments,” Schedule HC-P's item 7(a) “Representation and warranty reserves for 1-4 family residential mortgage loans sold to U.S. government agencies and government sponsored agencies,” and Schedule HC-P's item 7(b) “Representation and warranty reserves for 1-4 family residential mortgage loans sold to other parties” are considered confidential. Such treatment is appropriate because the data is not publicly available and could cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the respondent. The public release of this confidential data may impair the Board's future ability to collect similarly confidential data. Thus, this information may be kept confidential under exemptions (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which exempts from disclosure “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential” (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)), and (b)(8) of the Freedom of Information Act, which exempts from disclosure information related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)). If confidential treatment is requested by a respondent for other items in the FR Y-9C, the Board will review the request to determine if confidential treatment is appropriate.
Information collected in these reports generally is not considered confidential. However, because the information is collected as part of the Board's supervisory process, certain information may be afforded confidential treatment pursuant to exemption 8 of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)). Individual respondents may request that certain data be afforded confidential treatment pursuant to exemption 4 of FOIA if the data has not previously been publically disclosed and the release of the data would likely cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the respondent (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). Additionally, individual respondents may request that personally identifiable information be afforded confidential treatment pursuant to exemption 6 of FOIA if the release of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)). The applicability of FOIA exemptions 4 and 6 would be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Information collected in these reports generally is not considered confidential. However, because the information is collected as part of the Board's supervisory process, certain information may be afforded confidential treatment pursuant to exemption 8 of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)). Individual respondents may request that certain data be afforded confidential treatment pursuant to exemption 4 of FOIA if the data has not previously been publically disclosed and the release of the data would likely cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the respondent (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). Additionally, individual respondents may request that personally identifiable information be afforded confidential treatment pursuant to exemption 6 of FOIA if the release of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)). The applicability of FOIA exemptions 4 and 6 would be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Information collected in these reports generally is not considered confidential. However, because the information is collected as part of the Board's supervisory process, certain information
The Board also has determined that data items C572, C573, and C574 (line items 24, 25, and 26) may be protected from disclosure under exemption 4 of FOIA. Commercial or financial information may be protected from disclosure under exemption 4 if disclosure of such information is likely to cause substantial competitive harm to the provider of the information (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). The data items listed above pertain to new or changed pledges, or capital stock of any subsidiary savings association that secures short-term or long-term debt or other borrowings of the SLHC; changes to any class of securities of the SLHC or any of its subsidiaries that would negatively impact investors; and defaults of the SLHC or any of its subsidiaries during the quarter. Disclosure of this type of information is likely to cause substantial competitive harm to the SLHC providing the information and thus this information may be protected from disclosure under FOIA exemption 4.
With regard to the remaining data items on the FR 2320, the Board has determined that institutions may request confidential treatment for any FR 2320 data item or for all FR 2320 data items, and that confidential treatment will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
For
For institutions that are PBEs and also are SEC filers, as both terms are defined in U.S. GAAP, the new credit losses standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Thus, for an SEC filer that has a calendar year fiscal year, the standard is effective January 1, 2020, and institutions must first apply the new credit losses standard in its FR 2314, FR 2320, FR 2886b, FR Y-7N, FR Y-8, FR Y-9C, FR Y-9LP and the FR Y-11 report for the quarter ended March 31, 2020. For the FR 2248, FR 2644 and the FR Y-9SP reporters must first apply the new credit losses standard January 31, 2020, January 1, 2020 and June 30, 2020, respectively.
For a PBE that is not an SEC filer, the credit losses standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2020, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Thus, for a PBE that is not an SEC filer and has a calendar year fiscal year, the standard is effective January 1, 2021, and the institution must first apply the new credit losses standard in its FR 2314, FR 2320, FR 2886b, FR Y-7N, FR Y-8, FR Y-9C, FR Y-9LP and the FR Y-11 for the quarter ended March 31, 2021. For the FR 2248, FR 2644 and the FR Y-9SP reporters must first apply the new credit losses standard, January 31, 2021, January 6, 2021, and June 30, 2021, respectively.
For an institution that is not a PBE, the credit losses standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2020, and for interim period financial statements for
For regulatory reporting purposes, early application of the new credit losses standard will be permitted for all institutions for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years.
The new accounting standard developed by the FASB has been designed to replace the existing incurred loss methodology in U.S. GAAP. Under CECL, the allowance for credit losses is an estimate of the expected credit losses on financial assets measured at amortized cost, which is measured using relevant information about past events, including historical credit loss experience on financial assets with similar risk characteristics, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts that affect the collectability of the remaining cash flows over the contractual term of the financial assets. In concept, an allowance will be created upon the origination or acquisition of a financial asset measured at amortized cost. At subsequent reporting dates, the allowance will be reassessed for a level that is appropriate as determined in accordance with CECL. The allowance for credit losses under CECL is a valuation account, measured as the difference between the financial assets' amortized cost basis and the amount expected to be collected on the financial assets,
Impairment measurement under existing U.S. GAAP has often been considered complex because it encompasses five credit impairment models for different financial assets.
CECL introduces the concept of PCD financial assets, which replaces purchased credit-impaired (PCI) assets under existing U.S. GAAP. The differences in the PCD criteria compared to the existing PCI criteria will result in more purchased loans HFI, HTM debt securities, and available-for-sale (AFS) debt securities being accounted for as PCD financial assets. In contrast to the existing accounting for PCI assets, the new standard requires the estimate of expected credit losses embedded in the purchase price of PCD assets to be estimated and separately recognized as an allowance as of the date of acquisition. This is accomplished by grossing up the purchase price by the amount of expected credit losses at acquisition, rather than being reported as a credit loss expense. As a result, as of acquisition date, the amortized cost basis of a PCD financial asset is equal to the principal balance of the asset less the non-credit discount, rather than equal to the purchase price as is currently recorded for PCI loans.
The new accounting standard also modifies the existing accounting practices for impairment on AFS debt securities. Under this new standard, institutions will recognize a credit loss on an AFS debt security through an allowance for credit losses, rather than a direct write-down as is required by current U.S. GAAP. The recognized credit loss is limited to the amount by which the amortized cost of the security exceeds fair value. A write-down of an AFS debt security's amortized cost basis to fair value, with any incremental impairment reported in earnings, would be required only if the fair value of an AFS debt security is less than its amortized cost basis and either (1) the institution intends to sell the debt security, or (2) it is more likely than not that the institution will be required to sell the security before recovery of its amortized cost basis.
Although the measurement of credit loss allowances is changing under CECL, the FASB's new accounting standard does not address when a financial asset should be placed in nonaccrual status. Therefore, institutions should continue to apply the agencies' nonaccrual policies that are currently in place. In addition, the FASB retained the existing write-off guidance in U.S. GAAP, which requires an institution to write off a financial asset in the period the asset is deemed uncollectible.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than December 31, 2018.
1.
B.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Procurement Solicitation Package (FR 1400; OMB No. 7100-0180).
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Board may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Final approval under OMB delegated authority of the extension for three years, with revision, of the following reports:
Solicitations that require the vendor to process, store, or transmit data from the Board will contain the Vendor Risk Management Offeror Questionnaire (FR 1400C). The questionnaire will be specific to the security controls surrounding the vendor's proposed application that will be used to process, store, or transmit the data. Security controls will be defined and prioritized based on the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-53 (Security Controls and Assessment Procedures for Federal Information Systems and Organizations). In addition, for solicitations that have subcontracting opportunities and are expected to exceed $100,000 ($300,000 for construction), a non-covered company vendor is required to submit a subcontracting plan in its own format, with its proposal. Then, if the vendor is the chosen vendor and awarded a contract, the vendor is required to provide the quarterly Subcontracting Reports (FR 1400D) to the Board, which shall document the vendor's participation achievement on a cumulative basis. Information from the Subcontracting Report is used to assist the Board in fulfilling the requirement in Section 342(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act that requires the Board to submit to Congress an annual report regarding the fair inclusion of minorities and women in contracting.
The FR 1400 is authorized pursuant to sections 10 and 11 of the Federal Reserve Act (“FRA”), and section 342(c) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”). Sections 10(3) and 11 of the FRA (12 U.S.C. 243 and 248(l)) grant the Board full authority to manage its buildings and its staff. Section 10(4) of the FRA (12 U.S.C. 244) authorizes the Board to determine and prescribe the manner in which its obligations shall be incurred and its disbursements and expenses allowed and paid. Therefore, the Board can solicit proposals and seek the information in FR 1400 from prospective vendors.
Additionally, the FR 1400 is authorized by section 342(c) of Dodd-Frank (12 U.S.C. 5452(c)), which requires the Board to develop and implement standards and procedures for the review and evaluation of contract proposals and for hiring service providers that include a component that gives consideration to the diversity of a prospective vendor and the fair inclusion of women and minorities in the workforce of such vendor and any subcontractor.
A vendor generally may request confidential treatment for information submitted during the solicitation process, and the Board will review the request to determine if the data may be kept confidential under exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, which protects from disclosure trade secrets and commercial or financial information (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)).
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board).
Notice.
The Board is providing notice of the aggregate global indicator amounts for purposes of a calculation for 2018, which is required under the Board's rule regarding risk-based capital surcharges for global systemically important bank holding companies (GSIB surcharge rule).
Elizabeth MacDonald, Manager, (202) 475-6316, or Sean Healey, Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 912-4611, Division of Supervision and Regulation; or Mark Buresh, Counsel, (202) 452-5270, or Mary Watkins, Senior Attorney, (202) 452-3722, Legal Division. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW, Washington, DC 20551. For the hearing impaired only, Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869.
The Board's GSIB surcharge rule establishes a methodology to identify global systemically important bank holding companies in the United States (GSIBs) based on indicators that are correlated with systemic importance.
The aggregate global indicator amounts used in the score calculation under Method 1 are based on data collected by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). The BCBS amounts are determined based on the sum of the systemic indicator scores of the 75 largest U.S. and foreign banking organizations as measured by the BCBS, and any other banking organization that the BCBS includes in its sample total for that year. The BCBS publicly releases these values, denominated in euros, each year. Pursuant to the GSIB surcharge rule, the Board publishes the aggregate global indicator amounts each year as denominated in U.S. dollars using the euro-dollar exchange rate provided by the BCBS.
The aggregate global indicator amounts for purposes of the 2018 Method 1 score calculation under § 217.404(b)(1)(i)(B) of the GSIB surcharge rule are:
12 U.S.C. 248(a), 321-338a, 481-486, 1462a, 1467a, 1818, 1828, 1831n, 1831o, 1831p-l, 1831w, 1835, 1844(b), 1851, 3904, 3906-3909, 4808, 5365, 5368, 5371.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than December 27, 2018.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Kathryn Haney, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 7, 2019.
1.
2.
Material covered by 5 U.S.C. (c)(4).
Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.
Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.
Notice.
The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council) publishes notice of a proposed subaward from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Restoration Center, Department of Commerce to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, a nonprofit organization, for the purpose of implement restoration activities, conduct monitoring to assess restoration outcomes, engage in outreach and educational activities, and develop a hydrologic restoration project inventory for the Tampa Bay watershed. This subaward is in accordance with the Robinson Preserve Wetlands Restoration (Implementation) Award as approved in the Initial Funded Priority List.
Please send questions by email to
Section 1321(t)(2)(E)(ii)(III) of the RESTORE Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(2)(E)(ii)(III)) and Treasury's implementing regulation at 31 CFR 34.401(b) require that, for purposes of awards made under the Council-Selected Restoration Component, a State or Federal award recipient may make a grant or subaward to or enter into a cooperative agreement with a nongovernmental entity that equals or exceeds 10 percent of the total amount of the award provided to the State or Federal award recipient only if certain notice requirements are met. Specifically, at least 30 days before the State or Federal award recipient enters into such an agreement, the Council must publish in the
As specified in the Initial Funded Priority List, which is available on the Council's website at
Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.
Notice.
The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council) publishes notice of a proposed subaward from the NOAA Restoration Center, Department of Commerce to Ducks Unlimited, Inc., a nonprofit organization, for the purpose of completing planning, design, and engineering for a hydrologic restoration project located at the Bahia Grande Channel F site in the Laguna Atascosa Wildlife Refuge, Cameron County, Texas. Completion of these activities will provide the NOAA Restoration Center with a full understanding of the construction alternatives at this site, complete with environmental impact and benefits metrics. This subaward is in accordance with the Bahia Grande Wetland System Restoration (planning) Award as approved in the Initial Funded Priority List.
Please send questions by email to
Section 1321(t)(2)(E)(ii)(III) of the RESTORE Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(2)(E)(ii)(III)) and Treasury's implementing regulation at 31 CFR 34.401(b) require that, for purposes of awards made under the Council-Selected Restoration Component, a State or Federal award recipient may make a grant or subaward to or enter into a cooperative agreement with a nongovernmental entity that equals or exceeds 10 percent of the total amount of the award provided to the State or Federal award recipient only if certain notice requirements are met. Specifically, at least 30 days before the State or Federal award recipient enters into such an agreement, the Council must publish in the
As specified in the Initial Funded Priority List, which is available on the Council's website at
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Million Hearts® Hypertension Control Challenge, a program designed to identify clinical practices and health systems that have been successful in achieving high rates of hypertension control and to develop models for dissemination of successful strategies to control hypertension.
CDC must receive written comments on or before February 11, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0112 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Million Hearts® Hypertension Control Challenge (OMB No. 0920-0976, exp. 12/31/2019—Revision—National Center for Chronic disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death for men and women in the United States, among the most costly health problems facing our nation today, and among the most preventable. Heart disease and stroke also contribute significantly to disability. High blood pressure, also known as hypertension, is one of the leading causes of heart disease and stroke. Currently, about 75 million American adults have high blood pressure but only about half (48%) have adequately controlled blood pressure. The costs of hypertension are estimated at $48.9 billion annually in direct medical costs.
In September 2011, CDC launched the Million Hearts® initiative to prevent one million heart attacks and strokes by 2017. In January 2018, CDC launched Million Hearts® 2022 to continue to prevent one million heart attacks, strokes, and related health conditions. In order to achieve this goal, at least 10 million more Americans must have their blood pressure under control. Million Hearts® is working to reach this goal through the promotion of clinical practices that are effective in increasing blood pressure control among patient populations. There is scientific evidence that provides general guidance on the types of system-based changes to clinical practice that can improve patient blood pressure control, but additional information is needed to fully understand implementation practices so that they can be shared and promoted.
In 2013, CDC launched the Million Hearts® Hypertension Control Challenge, authorized by Public Law 111-358, the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education and Science Reauthorization Act of 2010 (COMPETES Act). The Challenge is designed to help CDC (1) identify clinical practices and health systems that have been successful in achieving high rates of hypertension control, and (2) develop models for dissemination. The Challenge is open to single practice providers, group practice providers, and healthcare systems. Providers whose hypertensive population achieves exemplary levels of hypertension control are recognized as Million Hearts® Hypertension Control Champions.
Interested clinicians or practices complete a web-based application form which collects the minimum amount of data needed to demonstrate hypertension control among their adult patients, including: (a) Two point-in-time measures of the clinical hypertension control rate for the patient population, (b) the size of the clinic population served, (c) a brief description of the characteristics of the patient population served and geographic location, and (d) a description of the sustainable systems and strategies adopted to achieve and maintain hypertension control rates. The estimated burden for completing the application form is 30 minutes. CDC scientists or contractors review each
In the second phase of assessment, applicants with the highest preliminary scores are asked to participate in a two-hour data verification and validation process. The applicant reviews the application form with a reviewer, describes how information was obtained from the providers', practices', or healthcare systems' electronic records, chart reviews, or other sources, and reviews the methodology used to calculate the reported hypertension control rate. Data verification and validation is conducted to ensure that all applicants meet eligibility criteria and assure accuracy of their reported hypertension control rate according to a standardized method. Applicants must have achieved a hypertension control rate of at least 80% among their adult patients aged 18-85 years with hypertension.
Finalists who pass the data verification and validation process and background check will be reviewed by a CDC panel of judges to determine the Champion status. Several Champions will be asked to participate in a one-hour, semi-structured interview and provide detailed information about the patient population served, the geographic region served, and the strategies employed by the practice or health system to achieve exemplary rates of hypertension control, including barriers and facilitators for those strategies. Based on the information collected for Challenges in 2013 through 2017, CDC recognized a total of 83 public and private health care practices and systems as Million Hearts® Hypertension Control Champions. The Champions are announced roughly annually, approximately six months after the Challenge application period ends. The current OMB approval for information collection expires December 31, 2019.
CDC plans to continue the Million Hearts® Hypertension Control Challenge through 2022 with revisions. The 2020 Challenge is planned to launch in February 2020, coinciding with American Heart Month. The application period will be open for approximately 45-60 days, with recognition of the 2020 Champions in the fall of 2020. A similar calendar year schedule is planned for 2021 and 2022. Revision for 2020, 2021, and 2022 includes a reduction in the estimated number of respondents. During the period of this Renewal request, on an annual basis, CDC estimates that information will be collected from up to 200 applicants using the application form, at most 40 data verifications, and at most 35 semi-structured interviews. There is an overall reduction in estimated annualized burden hours.
The overall goal of the Million Hearts® initiative is to prevent one million heart attacks and strokes, and controlling hypertension is one focus of the initiative. CDC will use the information collected through the Million Hearts® Hypertension Control Challenge to increase widespread attention to hypertension at the clinical practice level, improve understanding of successful and sustainable implementation strategies at the practice or health system level, bring visibility to organizations that invest in hypertension control, and motivate individual practices to strengthen their hypertension control efforts. Information collected through the
Million Hearts® Hypertension Control Challenge will link success in clinical outcomes of hypertension control with information about strategies that can be used to achieve similar favorable outcomes so that the strategies can be replicated by other providers and health care systems.
OMB approval for a revision is requested for three years. CDC estimates that up to 200 applicants will submit an application covered by this information collection each year. It is estimated that information collection activities will total 215 burden hours per year. This represents a decrease in the estimated annualized burden hours from 370 hours to 215 hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice of rescheduled meeting due to the closure of federal offices on December 5, 2018.
The President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities (PCPID) will host a webinar/conference call for its members to discuss the potential topics of the Committee's 2019 Report to the President. All the PCPID meetings, in any format, are open to the public. This virtual meeting will be conducted in a discussion format.
For further information and accommodations needs, please contact Ms. Allison Cruz, Director, Office of Innovation, 330 C Street SW, Switzer Building, Room 1114, Washington, DC
The purpose of this virtual meeting is to discuss the Committee's preparation of the 2019 Report to the President, including its content and format, and related data collection and analysis required to complete the writing of the Report. This meeting was originally scheduled for December 5 from 9:00-10:00 a.m. (EST). This meeting is rescheduled to December 12 from 9:00-10:00 a.m. (EST) due to the closure of Federal offices on December 5 and to allow for the call to occur before the end of year.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry and FDA staff entitled “Biomarker Qualification: Evidentiary Framework.” This draft guidance provides recommendations on general considerations to address when developing a biomarker for qualification under the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act), enacted on December 13, 2016, that added a new section to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). Qualification of a biomarker is a determination that within the stated context of use, the biomarker can be relied on to have a specific interpretation and application in drug development and regulatory review.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by February 11, 2019 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Chris Leptak, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6461, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-0017.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry and FDA staff entitled “Biomarker Qualification: Evidentiary Framework.” This draft guidance provides recommendations on general considerations to address when developing a biomarker for qualification under the Cures Act, enacted on December 13, 2016, that added a new section 507, Qualification of Drug Development Tools, to the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 357).
Historically, biomarkers gained acceptance for use in drug development after evidence from scientific and medical communities accumulated over time, leading to the recognition of the role and value of the biomarker in decision making. This evidence was considered as part of drug-specific development efforts, and there was no formal regulatory process to assess the broader utility of the biomarker independent from its use in a specific drug program. Even after the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research established the legacy (pre-Cures Act) Biomarker Qualification Program in 2007, progress in the development of biomarkers and their application in drug development has been hampered by the lack of a clear, predictable, and specific regulatory framework for the evidence sufficient to support regulatory decision making using biomarkers. This guidance is an additional step towards informing future guidances that will specifically address this need, the Cures Act requirements, and commitments from the Prescription Drug User Fee Reauthorization Performance Goals and Procedures Fiscal Years 2018 through 2022 (PDUFA VI goals letter)
This guidance was informed by several public workshops
The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Biomarker Qualification: Evidentiary Framework.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001, respectively.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “The `Deemed to be a License' Provision of the BPCI Act: Questions and Answers.” This draft guidance is intended to provide answers to common questions about FDA's interpretation of the statutory provision under which an application for a biological product approved under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) as of March 23, 2020, will be deemed to be a license for the biological product under the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) on March 23, 2020. This guidance also describes FDA's compliance policy for the labeling of biological products that will be the subject of deemed biologics license applications (BLAs). This guidance is intended to facilitate planning for the March 23, 2020, transition date and provide further clarity regarding the Agency's interpretation of this statutory provision. FDA also invites comment on the preliminary list of approved new drug applications (NDAs) for biological products under the FD&C Act that will be deemed to be BLAs on the transition date.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by February 11, 2019 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Janice Weiner, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “The `Deemed to be a License' Provision of the BPCI Act: Questions and Answers.” This draft guidance is intended to provide answers to common questions about FDA's interpretation of the “transition” provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act) under which an application for a biological product approved under section 505 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355) as of March 23, 2020, will be deemed to be a license for the biological product under section 351 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262) on March 23, 2020 (“the transition date”). This guidance also describes FDA's compliance policy for the labeling of biological products that will be the subject of deemed BLAs. This guidance is intended to facilitate planning for the transition date and provide further clarity regarding the Agency's interpretation of this statutory provision.
Although the majority of therapeutic biological products have been licensed under section 351 of the PHS Act, some protein products historically have been approved under section 505 of the FD&C Act. On March 23, 2010, the BPCI Act was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148). The BPCI Act clarified the statutory authority under which certain protein products will be regulated by amending the definition of a “biological product” in section 351(i) of the PHS Act to include a “protein (except any chemically synthesized polypeptide),” and describing procedures for submission of a marketing application for certain “biological products.” FDA has previously stated its interpretation of the statutory terms “protein” and “chemically synthesized polypeptide” in the amended definition of “biological product” (see FDA's draft guidance for industry entitled “New and Revised Draft Q&As on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act (Revision 2),” available on FDA's website at
The BPCI Act requires that a marketing application for a “biological product” (that previously could have been submitted under section 505 of the FD&C Act) must be submitted under section 351 of the PHS Act; this requirement is subject to certain exceptions during a 10-year transition period ending on March 23, 2020 (see section 7002(e)(1) to (3) and (e)(5) of the BPCI Act). On March 23, 2020, an approved application for a biological product under section 505 of the FD&C Act shall be deemed to be a license for the biological product under section 351 of the PHS Act (see section 7002(e)(4) of the BPCI Act).
In the
FDA received several comments on the Transition Policy Draft Guidance, including comments requesting that FDA provide additional information on administrative procedures and regulatory issues that would facilitate planning for the transition date. For example, commenters requested additional information on FDA expectations with respect to certain requirements for biological products regulated under the PHS Act that differ from requirements for drug products regulated under the FD&C Act. Commenters also requested information on FDA's approach to certain procedural issues, such as: (1) The transition of biological products from FDA's “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations” (the Orange Book) to FDA's “Lists of Licensed Biological Products with Reference Product Exclusivity and Biosimilarity or Interchangeability Evaluations” (the Purple Book); (2) whether an approved NDA will be deemed to be a license under section 351(a) or 351(k) of the PHS Act; (3) how BLA numbers will be assigned; and (4) user fee issues. This Q&A draft guidance is intended to address these comments and provide additional information to facilitate planning for the transition date.
We invite comment on the Q&A draft guidance, including additional topics that may be helpful for the Agency to address in connection with the transition date. In particular, we invite comment on the compliance policy for the labeling of biological products that are the subject of deemed BLAs and the length of the compliance period. In addition, we invite comment on the factors that FDA should consider in determining whether a combination product composed of a biological product constituent part and a drug constituent part will be subject to the transition provision.
We also invite comment on the preliminary list of approved applications for biological products under the FD&C Act that will be affected by the transition provision (available on FDA's website at
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “The `Deemed to be a License' Provision of the BPCI Act: Questions and Answers.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collection of information in 21 CFR part 314 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001; the collection of information in 21 CFR parts 601 and 610 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338; the collection of information in 21 CFR 600.80 through 600.90 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0308; and the collection of information in 21 CFR 201.56, 201.57, and 201.80 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0572. In addition, the collections of information for applications submitted under section 351(k) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262(k)) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0719.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Interpretation of the `Deemed To Be a License' Provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009.” This guidance describes FDA's interpretation of the statutory provision under which an application for a biological product approved under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) as of March 23, 2020, will be deemed to be a license for the biological product under the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) on March 23, 2020. Specifically, this guidance describes FDA's interpretation of the “deemed to be a license” provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act) for biological products that are approved under the FD&C Act as of March 23, 2020. This guidance also provides recommendations to sponsors of proposed protein products intended for submission in an application that may not receive final approval under the FD&C Act on or before March 23, 2020, to facilitate alignment of product development plans with FDA's interpretation of the transition provision of the BPCI Act.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Janice Weiner, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6270, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3475; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Interpretation of the `Deemed To Be a License' Provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009.”
This guidance describes FDA's interpretation of the provision of the BPCI Act under which an application for a biological product approved under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355) as of March 23, 2020, will be deemed to be a license for the biological product under section 351 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262) on March 23, 2020. Specifically, this guidance describes FDA's interpretation of the “deemed to be a license” provision in section 7002(e) of the BPCI Act for biological products that are approved under section 505 of the FD&C Act as of March 23, 2020 (the transition date). This guidance also provides recommendations to sponsors of proposed protein products intended for submission in an application that may not receive final approval under section 505 of the FD&C Act on or before March 23, 2020, to facilitate alignment of product development plans with FDA's interpretation of section 7002(e) of the BPCI Act.
Although the majority of therapeutic biological products have been licensed under section 351 of the PHS Act, some protein products historically have been approved under section 505 of the FD&C Act. On March 23, 2010, the BPCI Act was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148). The BPCI Act clarified the statutory authority under which certain protein products will be regulated by amending the definition of a “biological product” in section 351(i) of the PHS Act to include a “protein (except any chemically synthesized polypeptide),” and describing procedures for submission of a marketing application for a “biological product.” FDA previously stated its interpretation of the statutory terms “protein” and “chemically synthesized polypeptide” in the amended definition of “biological product” (see FDA's draft guidance for industry entitled “New and Revised Draft Q&As on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act (Revision 2),” available on FDA's website at
The BPCI Act requires that a marketing application for a “biological product” (that previously could have been submitted under section 505 of the FD&C Act) must be submitted under section 351 of the PHS Act; this requirement is subject to certain exceptions during a 10-year transition period ending on March 23, 2020 (see section 7002(e)(1)-(3) and (e)(5) of the BPCI Act). On March 23, 2020, an approved application for a biological product under section 505 of the FD&C Act shall be deemed to be a license for the biological product under section 351 of the PHS Act (see section 7002(e)(4) of the BPCI Act). Among other things, while section 7002(e)(4) of the BPCI Act explicitly provides that an approved application under section 505 of the FD&C Act shall be deemed to be a license on March 23, 2020, the statute does not provide a means for deeming an approved new drug application (NDA) to be an approved biologics license application (BLA) prior to, or after, the transition date. Therefore, FDA interprets section 7002(e) of the BPCI Act to plainly mean that, on March 23, 2020, only approved NDAs will be deemed to be BLAs. After March 23, 2020, the Agency will not approve any application submitted under section 505 of the FD&C Act for a biological product subject to the transition provision that is pending or tentatively approved. Such an application may, for example, be withdrawn and submitted under section 351(a) or 351(k) of the PHS Act, as appropriate. In the final guidance, FDA provides recommendations to minimize the impact on development programs for any proposed biological products intended for submission under section 505 of the FD&C Act that may not be able to receive final approval by March 23, 2020.
In the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Interpretation of the `Deemed To Be a License' Provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009.” It does not
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collection of information in 21 CFR part 312 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; the collection of information in 21 CFR part 314 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001; the collection of information in 21 CFR part 601 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338; and the collection of information for applications submitted under section 351(k) of the PHS Act has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0719; the collection of information in FDA's guidance for industry entitled “Formal Meetings Between the FDA and Biosimilar Biological Product Sponsors or Applicants” has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0802; and the collection of information in FDA's guidance for industry entitled “Formal Meetings Between the FDA and Sponsors or Applicants of PDUFA Products” has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0429.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “New and Revised Draft Q&As on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act (Revision 2).” The question and answer (Q&A) format is intended to inform prospective applicants and facilitate the development of proposed biosimilars and proposed interchangeable biosimilars, as well as to describe FDA's interpretation of certain statutory requirements added by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act). This draft guidance document revises the draft guidance document entitled “Biosimilars: Additional Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009,” issued May 13, 2015, to provide new and revised Q&As.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by February 11, 2019 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Sandra Benton, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 6522, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-1042, or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg., 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “New and Revised Draft Q&As on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act (Revision 2).” The Q&A format is intended to inform prospective applicants and facilitate the development of proposed biosimilars and proposed interchangeable biosimilars, as well as to describe FDA's interpretation of certain statutory requirements added by the BPCI Act.
The BPCI Act amended the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) and other statutes to create an abbreviated licensure pathway in section 351(k) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262(k)) for biological products shown to be biosimilar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed biological reference product (see sections 7001 through 7003 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148)). FDA believes that guidance for industry that provides answers to commonly asked questions regarding FDA's interpretation of the BPCI Act will enhance transparency and facilitate the development and approval of biosimilar and interchangeable products. FDA intends to update this guidance to include additional Q&As as appropriate.
This draft guidance is a companion to the final guidance entitled “Questions and Answers on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act.” In this pair of guidance documents, FDA issues each Q&A in draft form in this draft guidance, receives comments on the draft Q&A, and, as appropriate, moves the Q&A to the final guidance, after reviewing comments and incorporating suggested changes to the Q&A, when appropriate. Thus, this draft guidance contains Q&As distributed for comment purposes only and includes new Q&As, as well as revisions to Q&As that appeared in previous versions of the draft or final guidance documents. The final guidance contains Q&As that have been through the public comment process and reflects FDA's current thinking on the topics described. A Q&A may be withdrawn and removed from the Q&A guidance documents if, for instance, the issue addressed in the Q&A has been addressed in another FDA guidance document.
FDA has maintained the original numbering of the Q&As used in the April 2015 final guidance (“Biosimilars: Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009”) and the May 2015 draft guidance (“Biosimilars: Additional Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009”).
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The Q&As in this draft guidance, when finalized, will appear in the final guidance, and the final guidance will represent the current thinking of FDA on the Q&As posed in the “New and Revised Draft Q&As on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act (Revision 2).” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
FDA is announcing, in a separate document published elsewhere in this issue of the
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 for submission of an investigational new drug application have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of information in 21 CFR 314.50 for submission of a new drug application have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001. The collections of information in section 351(a) of the PHS Act and part 601 (21 CFR part 601) for submission of a BLA have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338. The collections of information in section 351(k) of the PHS Act and part 601 for submission of a BLA have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0719. The collections of information for submission of a meeting package to the appropriate review division with the meeting request as described in the draft guidance for industry “Formal Meetings Between the FDA and Sponsors or Applicants of BsUFA Products” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0802.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Questions and Answers on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act.” The question and answer (Q&A) format is intended to inform prospective applicants and facilitate the development of proposed biosimilars and proposed interchangeable biosimilars, as well as to describe FDA's interpretation of certain statutory requirements added by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act). This guidance document revises the final guidance document entitled “Biosimilars: Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009” issued April 28, 2015.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Sandra Benton, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 6522, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-1042, or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Questions and Answers on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act.” The Q&A format is intended to inform prospective applicants and facilitate the development of proposed biosimilars and proposed interchangeable biosimilars, as well as to describe FDA's interpretation of certain statutory requirements added by the BPCI Act.
The BPCI Act amended the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) and other statutes to create an abbreviated licensure pathway in section 351(k) of the PHS Act for biological products shown to be biosimilar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed biological reference product (see sections 7001 through 7003 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148)). FDA believes that guidance for industry that provides answers to commonly asked questions regarding FDA's interpretation of the BPCI Act will enhance transparency and facilitate the development and approval of biosimilar and interchangeable products. FDA intends to update this guidance document to include additional Q&As as appropriate.
This final guidance document is a companion to the draft guidance document entitled “New and Revised Draft Q&As on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act (Revision 2).” In this pair of guidance documents, FDA issues each Q&A in draft form in the draft guidance document, receives comments on the draft Q&A, and, as appropriate, moves the Q&A to this final guidance document, after reviewing comments and incorporating suggested changes to the Q&A, when appropriate. This final guidance document contains Q&As that have been through the public comment process and reflects FDA's current thinking on the topics described. This guidance document revises the final guidance document entitled “Biosimilars: Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009” to clarify and update certain Q&As and to add new Q&As. For certain Q&As, FDA has updated the Q&A by referring the reader to a separate guidance document that provides additional information on the topic. In addition, a Q&A may be withdrawn and removed from the Q&A guidance documents if, for instance, the issue addressed in the Q&A has been addressed in a separate FDA guidance document. For example, Q&A I.11 has been withdrawn as the issues addressed in that question are addressed in the guidance for industry entitled “Scientific Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Product.”
FDA has maintained the original numbering of the Q&As used in the April 2015 final guidance document (“Biosimilars: Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009”) and May 2015 draft guidance document (“Biosimilars: Additional Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009”).
This guidance finalizes certain Q&As that were included in the draft guidance issued on May 13, 2015. FDA considered written comments the Agency received regarding these Q&As, and made changes to the Q&As, as appropriate. Editorial changes were made primarily for clarification.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Questions and Answers on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
FDA is announcing, in a separate document published elsewhere in this issue of the
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 for submission of an investigational new drug application have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of information in 21 CFR 314.50 for submission of a new drug application have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001. The collections of information in section 351(a) of the PHS Act under part 601 (21 CFR part 601) for submission of a BLA have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338. The collections of information in section 351(k) of the PHS Act under part 601 for submission of a BLA have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0719. The collections of information for submission of a meeting package to the appropriate review division with the meeting request as described in the draft guidance for industry entitled “Formal Meetings Between the FDA and Sponsors or Applicants of BsUFA Products” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0802.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5534 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-5000; email Anna P. Guido at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the proposed collection of information described in Section A.
Located in or near Public Housing Authorities (PHA), EnVision Centers are centralized hubs for supportive services focused on the four pillars listed above. The EnVision Centers demonstration is premised on the notion that financial support alone is insufficient to solve the problem of poverty. Intentional and collective efforts across a diverse set of organizations with an even more diverse set of supportive services expertise are needed to implement a holistic approach to long-lasting self-sufficiency. Envision Centers embody this concept, bringing together a diverse set of organizations and resources under one roof, alleviating barriers commonly faced by residents and other low-income individuals including access and transportation. An example of this includes the IRS offering free tax preparation services to residents in the EnVision Center, while simultaneously having the Department of Education provide coordinators to aide residents in gathering key tax and other pertinent information needed to apply for the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). Another example includes; CyberPatriots offering computer technical classes through Cybergenerations while the Small Business Administration (SBA) provides “off the shelf” entrepreneurship courses to educate residents, and other low-income individuals interested in launching their own businesses.
In its report released in January 2011, that focused on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Employment Services and Workforce Investment Act Adult employment programs funded by the U.S. Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that efficiencies in offering government services could be achieved by co-locating services and consolidating administrative structures. EnVision Centers aim to help foster efficiencies through co-locating government services and consolidating administrative structures. Data collection is necessary to assess and determine eligibility for EnVision Center designation and identify other activities to be conducted at EnVision Centers.
Potential EnVision Center sites are required to submit letters of commitment and Action Plans that promote and expand economic mobility. These Action Plans will describe the goals of the community's participation in the demonstration and provide, to the extent as possible, objective goals regarding the number of partnerships established with state and local government, non-profits, faith-based organizations, and private and philanthropic organizations. Once designated as an EnVision Center, designees are required to keep records (
Envision Center sponsors may include Public Housing Authorities (PHAs), state and local governments, Tribes, Tribally-Designated Housing Agencies, participating jurisdictions, housing counseling agencies, multifamily owners/operators, faith-based and nonprofit organizations, and Continuums of Care (CoC).
The EnVision Center Executive Sponsor and Envision Center Director at the 200 EnVision Centers will complete the Commitment Letter. The EnVision Center Executive Sponsor, EnVision Center Director and the EnVision Center Navigator will complete the Action Plan and the Quarterly Report while the EnVision Center Participant will complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey.
This notice solicits comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted this review on January 2, 2018 (83 FR 148) and determined on April 9, 2018 that it would conduct a full review (83 FR 17446, April 19, 2018). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's review and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675 (c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on December 6, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4851 (December 2018), entitled
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted this review on June 1, 2018 (83 FR 25488) and determined on September 4, 2018 that it would conduct an expedited review (83 FR 50958, October 10, 2018).
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on December 7, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4840 (December 2018), entitled Sodium Hexametaphosphate from China
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of BIC Corporation, on December 6, 2018. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain pocket lighters. The complaint names as respondents: Arrow Lighter, Inc. d/b/a MK Lighter, Inc. of City of Industry, CA; Benxi Fenghe Lighter Co., Ltd. of China; Excel Wholesale Distributors Inc. of College Point, NY; Milan Import Export Company, LLC of San Diego, CA; Wellpine Company Limited of Hong Kong; and Zhuoye Lighter Manufacturing Co, Ltd. of China. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order or alternatively a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond during the 60-day review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3355) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Advisory Committees on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notice of cancellation of public hearings.
The January 4, 2019 public hearings in Phoenix, Arizona, on proposed amendments to the Appellate and Evidence Rules have been canceled.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
Announcements for this hearing were previously published in 83 FR 39463 and 83 FR 44305.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF); Department of Justice.
Notice of List of Explosive Materials.
Pursuant to United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations, the Department must publish and revise at least annually in the
The list becomes effective December 12, 2018.
Krissy Carlson, Chief; Firearms and Explosives Industry Division; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; United States Department of Justice; 99 New York Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20226; (202) 648-7120.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 841(d) and 27 CFR 555.23, the Department must publish and revise at least annually in the
Each material listed, as well as all mixtures containing any of these materials, constitute “explosive materials” under 18 U.S.C. 841(c). Materials constituting blasting agents are marked by an asterisk. While the list is comprehensive, it is not all-inclusive. The fact that an explosive material is not on the list does not mean that it is not within the coverage of the law if it otherwise meets the statutory definition in 18 U.S.C. 841. Explosive materials are listed alphabetically and, where applicable, followed by their common names, chemical names, and/or synonyms in brackets.
On December 28, 2017, the Department published in the
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 841(d) and 27 CFR 555.23, I hereby designate the following as “explosive materials” covered under 18 U.S.C. 841(c):
Acetylides of heavy metals.
Aluminum containing polymeric propellant.
Aluminum ophorite explosive.
Amatex.
Amatol.
Ammonal.
Ammonium nitrate explosive mixtures (cap sensitive).
*Ammonium nitrate explosive mixtures (non-cap sensitive).
Ammonium perchlorate having particle size less than 15 microns.
Ammonium perchlorate explosive mixtures (excluding ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP)).
Ammonium picrate [picrate of ammonia, Explosive D].
Ammonium salt lattice with isomorphously substituted inorganic salts.
*ANFO [ammonium nitrate-fuel oil].
Aromatic nitro-compound explosive mixtures.
Azide explosives.
Baranol.
Baratol.
BEAF [1, 2-bis (2, 2-difluoro-2-nitroacetoxyethane)].
Black powder.
Black powder based explosive mixtures.
Black powder substitutes.
*Blasting agents, nitro-carbo-nitrates, including non-cap sensitive slurry and water gel explosives.
Blasting caps.
Blasting gelatin.
Blasting powder.
BTNEC [bis (trinitroethyl) carbonate].
BTNEN [bis (trinitroethyl) nitramine].
BTTN [1,2,4 butanetriol trinitrate].
Bulk salutes.
Butyl tetryl.
Calcium nitrate explosive mixture.
Cellulose hexanitrate explosive mixture.
Chlorate explosive mixtures.
Composition A and variations.
Composition B and variations.
Composition C and variations.
Copper acetylide.
Cyanuric triazide.
Cyclonite [RDX].
Cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine [HMX].
Cyclotol.
Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine [RDX].
DATB [diaminotrinitrobenzene].
DDNP [diazodinitrophenol].
DEGDN [diethyleneglycol dinitrate].
Detonating cord.
Detonators.
Dimethylol dimethyl methane dinitrate composition.
Dinitroethyleneurea.
Dinitroglycerine [glycerol dinitrate].
Dinitrophenol.
Dinitrophenolates.
Dinitrophenyl hydrazine.
Dinitroresorcinol.
Dinitrotoluene-sodium nitrate explosive mixtures.
DIPAM [dipicramide; diaminohexanitrobiphenyl].
Dipicryl sulfone.
Dipicrylamine.
Display fireworks.
DNPA [2,2-dinitropropyl acrylate].
DNPD [dinitropentano nitrile].
Dynamite.
EDDN [ethylene diamine dinitrate].
EDNA [ethylenedinitramine].
Ednatol.
EDNP [ethyl 4,4-dinitropentanoate].
EGDN [ethylene glycol dinitrate].
Erythritol tetranitrate explosives.
Esters of nitro-substituted alcohols.
Ethyl-tetryl.
Explosive conitrates.
Explosive gelatins.
Explosive liquids.
Explosive mixtures containing oxygen-releasing inorganic salts and hydrocarbons.
Explosive mixtures containing oxygen-releasing inorganic salts and nitro bodies.
Explosive mixtures containing oxygen-releasing inorganic salts and water insoluble fuels.
Explosive mixtures containing oxygen-releasing inorganic salts and water soluble fuels.
Explosive mixtures containing sensitized nitromethane.
Explosive mixtures containing tetranitromethane (nitroform).
Explosive nitro compounds of aromatic hydrocarbons.
Explosive organic nitrate mixtures.
Explosive powders.
Flash powder.
Fulminate of mercury.
Fulminate of silver.
Fulminating gold.
Fulminating mercury.
Fulminating platinum.
Fulminating silver.
Gelatinized nitrocellulose.
Gem-dinitro aliphatic explosive mixtures.
Guanyl nitrosamino guanyl tetrazene.
Guanyl nitrosamino guanylidene hydrazine.
Guncotton.
Heavy metal azides.
Hexanite.
Hexanitrodiphenylamine.
Hexanitrostilbene.
Hexogen [RDX].
Hexogene or octogene and a nitrated N-methylaniline.
Hexolites.
HMTD [hexamethylenetriperoxidediamine].
HMX [cyclo-1,3,5,7-tetramethylene 2,4,6,8-tetranitramine; Octogen].
Hydrazinium nitrate/hydrazine/aluminum explosive system.
Hydrazoic acid.
Igniter cord.
Igniters.
Initiating tube systems.
KDNBF [potassium dinitrobenzo-furoxane].
Lead azide.
Lead mannite.
Lead mononitroresorcinate.
Lead picrate.
Lead salts, explosive.
Lead styphnate [styphnate of lead, lead trinitroresorcinate].
Liquid nitrated polyol and trimethylolethane.
Liquid oxygen explosives.
Magnesium ophorite explosives.
Mannitol hexanitrate.
MDNP [methyl 4,4-dinitropentanoate].
MEAN [monoethanolamine nitrate].
Mercuric fulminate.
Mercury oxalate.
Mercury tartrate.
Metriol trinitrate.
Minol-2 [40% TNT, 40% ammonium nitrate, 20% aluminum].
MMAN [monomethylamine nitrate]; methylamine nitrate.
Mononitrotoluene-nitroglycerin mixture.
Monopropellants.
NIBTN [nitroisobutametriol trinitrate].
Nitrate explosive mixtures.
Nitrate sensitized with gelled nitroparaffin.
Nitrated carbohydrate explosive.
Nitrated glucoside explosive.
Nitrated polyhydric alcohol explosives.
Nitric acid and a nitro aromatic compound explosive.
Nitric acid and carboxylic fuel explosive.
Nitric acid explosive mixtures.
Nitro aromatic explosive mixtures.
Nitro compounds of furane explosive mixtures.
Nitrocellulose explosive.
Nitroderivative of urea explosive mixture.
Nitrogelatin explosive.
Nitrogen trichloride.
Nitrogen tri-iodide.
Nitroglycerine [NG, RNG, nitro, glyceryl trinitrate, trinitroglycerine].
Nitroglycide.
Nitroglycol [ethylene glycol dinitrate, EGDN].
Nitroguanidine explosives.
Nitronium perchlorate propellant mixtures.
Nitroparaffins Explosive Grade and ammonium nitrate mixtures.
Nitrostarch.
Nitro-substituted carboxylic acids.
Nitrourea.
Octogen [HMX].
Octol [75 percent HMX, 25 percent TNT].
Organic amine nitrates.
Organic nitramines.
PBX [plastic bonded explosives].
Pellet powder.
Penthrinite composition.
Pentolite.
Perchlorate explosive mixtures.
Peroxide based explosive mixtures.
PETN [nitropentaerythrite, pentaerythrite tetranitrate, pentaerythritol tetranitrate].
Picramic acid and its salts.
Picramide.
Picrate explosives.
Picrate of potassium explosive mixtures.
Picratol.
Picric acid (manufactured as an explosive).
Picryl chloride.
Picryl fluoride.
PLX [95% nitromethane, 5% ethylenediamine].
Polynitro aliphatic compounds.
Polyolpolynitrate-nitrocellulose explosive gels.
Potassium chlorate and lead sulfocyanate explosive.
Potassium nitrate explosive mixtures.
Potassium nitroaminotetrazole.
Pyrotechnic compositions.
Pyrotechnic fuses.
PYX [2,6-bis(picrylamino)] 3,5-dinitropyridine.
RDX [cyclonite, hexogen, T4, cyclo-1,3,5,-trimethylene-2,4,6,-trinitramine; hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-S-triazine].
Safety fuse.
Salts of organic amino sulfonic acid explosive mixture.
Salutes (bulk).
Silver acetylide.
Silver azide.
Silver fulminate.
Silver oxalate explosive mixtures.
Silver styphnate.
Silver tartrate explosive mixtures.
Silver tetrazene.
Slurried explosive mixtures of water, inorganic oxidizing salt, gelling agent, fuel, and sensitizer (cap sensitive).
Smokeless powder.
Sodatol.
Sodium amatol.
Sodium azide explosive mixture.
Sodium dinitro-ortho-cresolate.
Sodium nitrate explosive mixtures.
Sodium nitrate-potassium nitrate explosive mixture.
Sodium picramate.
Squibs.
Styphnic acid explosives.
Tacot [tetranitro-2,3,5,6-dibenzo-1,3a,4,6a tetrazapentalene].
TATB [triaminotrinitrobenzene].
TATP [triacetonetriperoxide].
TEGDN [triethylene glycol dinitrate].
Tetranitrocarbazole.
Tetrazene [tetracene, tetrazine, 1(5-tetrazolyl)-4-guanyl tetrazene hydrate].
Tetrazole explosives.
Tetryl [2,4,6 tetranitro-N-methylaniline].
Tetrytol.
Thickened inorganic oxidizer salt slurried explosive mixture.
TMETN [trimethylolethane trinitrate].
TNEF [trinitroethyl formal].
TNEOC [trinitroethylorthocarbonate].
TNEOF [trinitroethylorthoformate].
TNT [trinitrotoluene, trotyl, trilite, triton].
Torpex.
Tridite.
Trimethylol ethyl methane trinitrate composition.
Trimethylolthane trinitrate-nitrocellulose.
Trimonite.
Trinitroanisole.
Trinitrobenzene.
Trinitrobenzoic acid.
Trinitrocresol.
Trinitro-meta-cresol.
Trinitronaphthalene.
Trinitrophenetol.
Trinitrophloroglucinol.
Trinitroresorcinol.
Tritonal.
Urea nitrate.
Water-bearing explosives having salts of oxidizing acids and nitrogen bases, sulfates, or sulfamates (cap sensitive).
Water-in-oil emulsion explosive compositions.
Xanthomonas hydrophilic colloid explosive mixture.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until February 11, 2019.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Connor Brooks, Statistician, Law Enforcement Statistics Unit, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
This information collection is a census of medical examiner and coroner offices. The 2018 survey is revised from the data collection referencing 2004. BJS plans to field the 2018 CMEC from May through November 2019. Respondents will be the medical examiners and coroners (or members of their staff) working in medicolegal death investigation offices.
(5)
(6)
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until February 11, 2019.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Laura Maruschak, Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The affected public consists of approximately 451 respondents, including 51 central state DOC and BOP reporters and an estimated 400 reporters from locally- or privately-operated facilities primarily housing prisoners for state or BOP authorities. BJS will attempt to identify central reporters for private facilities operated by the same company. If successful, the overall number of respondents will be reduced.
The Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities (CCF) is part of the larger Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) portfolio of establishment surveys that inform the nation on the characteristics of adult correctional facilities and persons sentenced to state and federal prisons. The CCF collects data at the facility level. Data obtained are intended to describe the characteristics of confinement and community-based adult correctional facilities that are (1) operated by state and BOP authorities or (2) operated by local authorities or private entities under contract to state or BOP authorities. The data collected inform issues related to the operations of facilities and the conditions of confinement, including facility capacity and crowding, safety and security within prisons, staff workload, overall facility function, programming, work assignments, and special housing. All data are submitted on a voluntary basis. Consistent with the most recent iteration of the CCF in 2005, BJS plans to collect the following data on each facility eligible for the census with the reference date of June 30, 2019:
• Type of authority operating facility (federal, state, local, joint state and local)
• Whether the facility is authorized to house males, females, or both males and females
• Type of physical security at the facility
• Functions of the facility
• Whether or not the facility has a designated geriatric or hospice unit
• Percentage of prisoners permitted to leave the facility unaccompanied
• Rated or design capacity of the facility
• Whether or not the facility operated under a state or federal court order or consent decree that limited the number of prisoners it could house
• Whether or not the facility operated under a state or federal court order or consent decree for specific conditions of confinement
• Average daily population of male and female prisoners over a one-year period
• Number of prisoners on the reference date
• Number of male and female prisoners under the age of 18 on the reference date
• Number of prisoners by racial category on the reference date
• Number of prisoners held in maximum, medium, and minimum custody on the reference date
• Number of prisoners who were not U.S. citizens on the reference date
• Number of prisoners held in maximum, medium, and minimum custody on the reference date
• Number of prisoners housed in protective custody, administrative segregation, segregated for disciplinary reasons, or other restrictive housing on the reference date
• Number of prisoners held for federal, state, local, and tribal authorities on the reference date
• Number of male and female security staff employed by the facility on the reference date
• Number of security staff listed by racial category on the reference date
• Number of misconduct/disciplinary reports filed on prisoners over a one-year period
• Number of assaults against facility staff by prisoners reported over a one-year period
• Number of prisoner assaults by other prisoners reported over a one-year period
• Number of disturbances that occurred at the facility over a one-year period
• Number of escapes by prisoners that occurred at the facility over a one-year period
• Number of walkaways by prisoners that occurred at the facility over a one-year period
• Types of work assignments available to prisoners on the reference date
• Types of educational programs available to prisoners on the reference date
• Types of counseling or special programs available to prisoners on the reference date
BJS is proposing to add the following items to the 2019 CCF collection, all of which are likely available from the same databases as existing data elements and should pose minimal additional burden to the respondents, while enhancing BJS's ability to characterize the corrections system and populations it serves:
• Whether or not the facility is administratively linked to other facilities and if they are, names of other facilities
• Whether or not the facility has a housing unit specifically designated for veterans
• Number of prisoners by sex who were not U.S. citizens on the reference date
• Number of security staff on average at facility by day shift, night shift, and overnight shift
• Number of shared security staff with other administratively-linked facilities
• Number of prisoner assaults by other prisoners resulting in serious injury and without serious injury over a one-year period
• Number of GED certificates awarded to prisoners over a one-year period
Finally, BJS is proposing to remove the following items from the CCF collection, based on high burden, low utilization, and/or low response rates in 2005:
• Year facility was constructed
• Plans to renovate or close the facility during the next three years
• Net effect of planned changes in terms of bed capacity of the facility
• Number of prisoners housed in a geriatric unit on the reference date
• Year that state or federal court order or consent decree took effect
• Number of confined prisoners sentenced to death on the reference date
• Per diem fees paid to the facility for housing federal, state, or local authorities
• Payroll and non-payroll, full-time and part-time staff, employed by the facility on the reference date
• Number of male and female administrators, clerical and maintenance, educational, professional, and technical staff employed by the facility on the reference date
• Number of full-time and part-time payroll staff by racial category on the reference date
• Number of part-time security staff by racial category on the reference date
• Number of facility staff deaths resulting from assaults by prisoners for a one-year period
• Number of disturbances by type (major or other) that occurred at the facility over a one-year period
• Number of prisoners at the facility that had work assignments on the reference date
• Whether the facility operates a work release program, and if so, number of prisoners participating in the program on the reference date
BJS uses the information gathered in CCF in published reports and statistics. The reports will be made available to the U.S. Congress, Executive Office of the President, practitioners, researchers, students, the media, others interested in criminal justice statistics, and the general public via the BJS website.
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice of meetings.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that 11 meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference or videoconference.
See the
National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20506.
Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Sherry Hale, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506;
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of July 5, 2016, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.
The upcoming meetings are:
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the United States Postal Service® (Postal Service) is revising the notice for Privacy Act System of Records USPS 830.000, Customer Service and Correspondence.
These revisions will become effective without further notice on January 11, 2019 unless comments received on or before that date result in a contrary determination.
Comments may be mailed or delivered to the Privacy and Records Management Office, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 1P830, Washington, DC 20260-1101. Copies of all written comments will be available at this address for public inspection and photocopying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Janine Castorina, Chief Privacy and Records Management Officer, Privacy and Records Management Office, 202-268-3069 or
This notice is in accordance with the Privacy Act requirement that agencies publish their systems of records in the
a. Support the new Address Matching Database, which will be used to identify, prevent and mitigate fraudulent activity within the Change of Address and Hold Mail processes.
b. Support the Operation Santa program, a long-standing program that collects the thousands of letters to Santa the USPS receives each year and allows customers to collect and fulfill gift requests for underprivileged children.
The new Address Matching Database is being implemented to identify, prevent and mitigate fraudulent activity within the Change of Address and Hold Mail processes. Postal Service is establishing a dataflow between existing customer systems and the Address Matching Database. This dataflow will allow the Address Matching Database to: Confirm if there is an address match when a new Hold Mail request is submitted; confirm the presence of a Change of Address request when a Hold Mail request is submitted during a 30
Operation Santa is a long-standing program that collects the thousands of letters to Santa the Postal Service receives each year and allows customers to collect and fulfill gift requests for underprivileged children. In 2017 USPS digitalized the program in a Pilot test out of the Farley, NY building to continue to protect children's PII while allowing more letters to be adopted. In 2018 the Pilot program will be expanded to 7 markets while performing a volume test in hopes of expanding the program nationally in the coming years. The Letters from Santa program also adds to the excitement of Christmas and is ideal for interesting youngsters in letter writing, stamps and penmanship.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11), interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, or arguments on this proposal. A report of the proposed revisions has been sent to Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget for their evaluations. The Postal Service does not expect these amended systems of records to have any adverse effect on individual privacy rights. The notice for USPS 830.000, Customer Service and Correspondence, provided below in its entirety, is as follows:
USPS 830.000, Customer Service and Correspondence.
None.
USPS Consumer and Industry Affairs, Headquarters; Integrated Business Solutions Services Centers; the National Customer Support Center (NCSC); districts, Post Offices, contractor sites; and detached mailing units at customer sites.
Chief Customer and Marketing Officer and Executive Vice President, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260-5005; (202) 268-7536.
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, and 404.
1. To enable review and response services for customer inquiries and concerns regarding USPS and its products and services.
2. To ensure that customer accounts and needs are attended to in a timely manner.
3. To enhance the customer experience by improving the security of Change of Address (COA) and Hold Mail processes.
4. To protect USPS customers from becoming potential victims of mail fraud and identity theft.
5. To identify and mitigate potential fraud in the COA and Hold Mail processes.
6. To verify a customer's identity when applying for COA and Hold Mail services.
7. To support (or facilitate) the administration of Operation Santa, Letters to Santa, or similar programs.
This system contains records relating to customers who contact customer service by online and offline channels. This includes customers making inquiries via email, 1-800-ASK-USPS, other toll-free contact centers, or the Business Service Network (BSN), as well as customers with product-specific service or support issues.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Customers and, for call center operations, commercially available sources of names, addresses, and telephone numbers.
Standard routine uses 1. through 7., 10., and 11. apply.
Automated databases, computer storage media, and paper.
By customer name, customer ID(s), mail or email address, phone number, customer account number, case number, article number, pickup number, and last four digits of SSN, ZIP Code, or other customer identifier.
1. Customer care records for
2. Records related to 1-800-ASK-USPS, Delivery Confirmation service, Special Services, and international call centers are retained 1 year.
3. Customer complaint letters are retained 6 months and automated complaint records are retained 3 years.
4. Business Service Network records are retained 5 years.
5. Records related to Operation Santa, Letters to Santa, or similar programs are retained 6 months after the new calendar year.
6. Other records are retained 2 years after resolution of the inquiry.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections.
Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See
Customers wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries to the system manager in writing. Inquiries should include name, address, and other identifying information.
None.
June 27, 2012,
Railroad Retirement Board.
Notice.
As required by the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (Act), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) hereby publishes its notice for calendar year 2019 of account balances, factors used in calculating experience-based employer contribution rates, computation of amounts related to the monthly compensation base, and the maximum daily benefit rate for days of unemployment or sickness.
The balance in notice (1) and the determinations made in notices (3) through (7) are based on data as of June 30, 2018. The balance in notice (2) is based on data as of September 30, 2018. The determinations made in notices (5) through (7) apply to the calculation, under section 8(a)(1)(C) of the Act, of employer contribution rates for 2019. The determinations made in notices (8) through (11) are effective January 1, 2019. The determination made in notice (12) is effective for registration periods beginning after June 30, 2019.
Secretary to the Board, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 N Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Michael J. Rizzo, Bureau of the Actuary and Research, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 N Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275, telephone (312) 751-4771.
The RRB is required by section 8(c)(1) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (Act) (45 U.S.C. 358(c)(1)) as amended by Public Law 100-647, to proclaim by October 15 of each year certain system-wide factors used in calculating experience-based employer contribution rates for the following year. The RRB is further required by section 8(c)(2) of the Act (45 U.S.C. 358(c)(2)) to publish the amounts so determined and proclaimed. The RRB is required by section 12(r)(3) of the Act (45 U.S.C. 362(r)(3)) to publish by December 11, 2018, the computation of the calendar year 2019 monthly compensation base (section 1(i) of the Act) and amounts described in sections 1(k), 2(c), 3 and 4(a-2)(i)(A) of the Act which are related to changes in the monthly compensation base. Also, the RRB is required to publish, by June 11, 2019, the maximum daily benefit rate under section 2(a)(3) of the Act for days of unemployment and days of sickness in registration periods beginning after June 30, 2019.
Pursuant to section 8(c)(2) and section 12(r)(3) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (Act) (45 U.S.C. 358(c)(2) and 45 U.S.C. 362(r)(3), respectively), the Board gives notice of the following:
1. The balance to the credit of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance (RUI) Account, as of June 30, 2018, is $118,064,725.00;
2. The September 30, 2018, balance of any new loans to the RUI Account, including accrued interest, is zero;
3. The system compensation base is $4,148,935,149.55 as of June 30, 2018;
4. The cumulative system unallocated charge balance is ($433,831,623.64) as of June 30, 2018;
5. The pooled credit ratio for calendar year 2019 is zero;
6. The pooled charged ratio for calendar year 2019 is zero;
7. The surcharge rate for calendar year 2019 is 1.5 percent;
8. The monthly compensation base under section 1(i) of the Act is $1,605 for months in calendar year 2019;
9. The amount described in sections 1(k) and 3 of the Act as “2.5 times the monthly compensation base” is $4,012.50 for base year (calendar year) 2019;
10. The amount described in section 4(a-2)(i)(A) of the Act as “2.5 times the monthly compensation base” is $4,012.50 with respect to disqualifications ending in calendar year 2019;
11. The amount described in section 2(c) of the Act as “an amount that bears the same ratio to $775 as the monthly compensation base for that year as computed under section 1(i) of this Act bears to $600” is $2,073 for months in calendar year 2019;
12. The maximum daily benefit rate under section 2(a)(3) of the Act is $78 with respect to days of unemployment and days of sickness in registration periods beginning after June 30, 2019.
A surcharge is added in the calculation of each employer's contribution rate, subject to the applicable maximum rate, for a calendar year whenever the balance to the credit of the RUI Account on the preceding June 30 is less than the greater of $100 million or the amount that bears the same ratio to $100 million as the system compensation base for that June 30 bears to the system compensation base as of June 30, 1991. If the RUI Account balance is less than $100 million (as indexed), but at least $50 million (as indexed), the surcharge will be 1.5 percent. If the RUI Account balance is less than $50 million (as indexed), but greater than zero, the surcharge will be 2.5 percent. The maximum surcharge of 3.5 percent applies if the RUI Account balance is less than zero.
The ratio of the June 30, 2018 system compensation base of $4,148,935,149.55 to the June 30, 1991 system compensation base of $2,763,287,237.04 is 1.50144911. Multiplying 1.50144911 by $100 million yields $150,144,911.00. Multiplying $50 million by 1.50144911 produces $75,072,455.50. The Account balance on June 30, 2018, was $118,064,725.00. Accordingly, the surcharge rate for calendar year 2019 is 1.5 percent.
For years after 1988, section 1(i) of the Act contains a formula for determining the monthly compensation base. Under the prescribed formula, the monthly compensation base increases by approximately two-thirds of the cumulative growth in average national wages since 1984. The monthly compensation base for months in calendar year 2019 shall be equal to the greater of (a) $600 or (b) $600 [1 + {(A
Using the calendar year 2019 tier 1 tax base of $132,900 for A above produces the amount of $1,606.35, which must then be rounded to $1,605. Accordingly, the monthly compensation base is determined to be $1,605 for months in calendar year 2019.
For years after 1988, sections 1(k), 3, 4(a-2)(i)(A) and 2(c) of the Act contain formulas for determining amounts related to the monthly compensation base.
Under section 1(k), remuneration earned from employment covered under the Act cannot be considered subsidiary remuneration if the employee's base year compensation is less than 2.5 times the monthly compensation base for months in such base year. Under section 3, an employee shall be a “qualified employee” if his/her base year compensation is not less than 2.5 times the monthly compensation base for months in such base year. Under section 4(a-2)(i)(A), an employee who leaves work voluntarily without good cause is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits until he has been paid compensation of not less than 2.5 times the monthly compensation base for months in the calendar year in which the disqualification ends.
Multiplying 2.5 by the calendar year 2019 monthly compensation base of $1,605 produces $4,012.50. Accordingly, the amount determined under sections 1(k), 3 and 4(a-2)(i)(A) is $4,012.50 for calendar year 2019.
Under section 2(c), the maximum amount of normal benefits paid for days of unemployment within a benefit year and the maximum amount of normal benefits paid for days of sickness within a benefit year shall not exceed an employee's compensation in the base year. In determining an employee's base year compensation, any money remuneration in a month not in excess of an amount that bears the same ratio to $775 as the monthly compensation base for that year bears to $600 shall be taken into account.
The calendar year 2019 monthly compensation base is $1,605. The ratio of $1,605 to $600 is 2.67500000. Multiplying 2.67500000 by $775 produces $2,073. Accordingly, the amount determined under section 2(c) is $2,073 for months in calendar year 2019.
Section 2(a)(3) contains a formula for determining the maximum daily benefit rate for registration periods beginning after June 30, 1989, and after each June 30 thereafter. Legislation enacted on October 9, 1996, revised the formula for indexing maximum daily benefit rates. Under the prescribed formula, the maximum daily benefit rate increases by approximately two-thirds of the cumulative growth in average national wages since 1984. The maximum daily benefit rate for registration periods beginning after June 30, 2019, shall be equal to 5 percent of the monthly compensation base for the base year immediately preceding the beginning of the benefit year. Section 2(a)(3) further provides that if the amount so computed is not a multiple of $1, it shall be rounded down to the nearest multiple of $1.
The calendar year 2018 monthly compensation base is $1,560. Multiplying $1,560 by 0.05 yields $78.00. Accordingly, the maximum daily benefit rate for days of unemployment and days of sickness beginning in registration periods after June 30, 2019, is determined to be $78.
By Authority of the Board.
On October 17, 2018, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to a proposal to amend port fees within Options 7, Section 3, titled “BX Options Market—Ports and Other Services.”
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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to define “account number” and utilize that term within Options 7, Section 3. Each change will be described in more detail below.
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new definition within Options 7, Section 3 and apply this definition within the rule. The purpose of this defined new term “account number” is to conform the Exchange's use of certain terms within BX Rules. This term would be utilized in Options 7, Section 3 to describe the manner in which pricing is calculated. Recently, the Nasdaq affiliated exchanges filed rule changes to conform the usage of various terms across its 6 affiliated options markets within the various rulebooks.
At this time, the Exchange proposes to define an “account number” within Options 7, Section 3 to mean a number assigned to a Participant. Participants may have more than one account number. The term “mnemonic” has been used frequently throughout Options 7 without being defined. The Exchange proposes to remove the term “mnemonic” from Options 7, Section 3 and replace the term with the defined term “account number” for the FIX protocol. The Exchange notes that the terms mnemonic and account number were being used interchangeably. The Exchange recently defined both terms in its rules.
Also, the Exchange proposes to remove the term “mnemonic” from the CTI Port Fee, FIX DROP Port Fee, BX Depth Port Fee and BX Top Port Fee. Today, these ports are assessed only one fee per port, per month and therefore adding the term “per account number” would be redundant and unnecessary. These ports are associated with one account number. The Exchange is not proposing to amend the manner in which these ports are assessed, rather the Exchange proposes to eliminate the “per mnemonic” description. The Exchange believes that the billing is clearly defined as “per port, per month.”
The Exchange also proposes to amend current “(c) Access and Redistribution Fee” as “v” to conform to the remainder of the rule.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to define the term “account number” within Options, Section 3 and apply that term within the rule in place of the term “mnemonic” as to the manner in which FIX Port Fees are priced is reasonable because the term is defined and will be utilized consistently throughout Options 7, where applicable. The usage of the defined term “account number” will
The Exchange's proposal to define the term “account number” within Options 7, Section 3 and apply that term within Options 7, Section 3, in place of the term “mnemonic” for the FIX Port Fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange proposes to apply that term uniformly in billing Participants utilizing those ports.
The Exchange's proposal to remove the term “mnemonic” for the pricing of the CTI Port Fee, FIX DROP Port Fee, BX Depth Port Fee and BX Top Port Fee is reasonable because, today, these ports are assessed only one fee per port, per month and this change will bring greater clarity to the manner in which these services are billed. The term “mnemonic” was undefined until the Exchange filed to define that term within the BX Rules.
The Exchange's proposal to remove the term “mnemonic” for the pricing of the CTI Port Fee, FIX DROP Port Fee, BX Depth Port Fee and BX Top Port Fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will continue to uniformly assess all market participants these services in a uniform manner. The proposed change does not amend the manner in which these services are billed.
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. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that this proposal does not amend actual fees, rather the Exchange proposes to amend the name of a port fee and define a new term to be used more accurately to describe the manner in which certain services within Options 7, Section 3 are billed.
The Exchange's proposal to define the term “account number” within Options 7, Section 3 and apply that term within that rule in place of the term “mnemonic” with respect to the manner in which FIX protocols are priced does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange proposes to apply that term uniformly in billing Participants utilizing those ports. No changes are being made to the manner in which the Exchange bills these ports.
The Exchange's proposal to remove the term “mnemonic” for the pricing of the CTI Port Fee, FIX DROP Port Fee, BX Depth Port Fee and BX Top Port Fee does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange will continue to uniformly assess all market participants these services in a uniform manner. The proposed change does not amend the manner in which these services are billed.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2018-060. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. The requested order would permit certain registered open-end investment companies to acquire shares of certain registered open-end investment companies, registered closed-end investment companies, business development companies, as defined in section 2(a)(48) of the Act, and registered unit investment trusts (collectively, “Underlying Funds”) that are within and outside the same group of investment companies as the acquiring investment companies, in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1) of the Act.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: John A. Mooney, Esq., Symmetry Partners, LLC, 151 National Drive, Glastonbury, CT 06033; Mark C. Amorosi, Esq., K&L Gates LLP, 1601 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.
Bruce R. MacNeil, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6817, or Kaitlin C. Bottock, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order to permit (a) a Fund
2. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application. Such terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (a) undue influence over an Underlying Fund that is not in the same “group of investment companies” as the Fund of Funds through control or voting power, or in connection with certain services, transactions, and underwritings, (b) excessive layering of fees, and (c) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act.
3. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 26, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On September 24, 2018, the Commission instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 5, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Currently, Rule 6.62-O sets forth the order types available on the Exchange, including Liquidity Adding Orders (each an “ALO”) and PNP (Post No Preference) Orders, both of which provide market participants control over how their orders interact with contra-side liquidity. Specifically, an ALO is a
The Exchange proposes to provide market participants the ability to send in ALOs designated as RALO.
A resting RALO to buy (sell) that is displayed one MPV below (above) interest on the Consolidated Book would be eligible to trade at its display price.
The Exchange proposes to provide market participants the ability to send in PNP Orders designated as RPNP.
A RPNP to buy (sell) that is displayed at a price one MPV below (above) the NBO (NBB) will trade at the NBO (NBB); provided, however, that if the NBO (NBB) updates to lock or cross the RPNP's display price, such RPNP will trade at its display price in time priority behind other eligible interest already displayed at that price.
Currently, Rule 6.37A-O(a) defines Market Maker quotes, including quotations designated as Market Maker—Light Only (“MMLO”), and specifies how such quotes are processed when a series is open for trading. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.37A-O(a) to add two new quote designations to provide Market Makers with the same functionality for their quotations as are proposed for orders designated as RALO and RPNP entered on the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to provide Market Makers the ability to designate quotations as MMALO.
Similar to the proposed RALO, a resting MMALO to buy (sell) that is displayed one MPV below (above) interest on the Consolidated Book will trade at its display price.
To incorporate MMALO (and MMRP discussed below) into existing rule text, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.37A-O by re-organizing and re-numbering related rule text regarding the treatment of untraded incoming quotations. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide that “[a]ny untraded quantity of an incoming quotation will be added to the Consolidated Book, except in the circumstances specified below, which result in the remaining balance being cancelled,”
An incoming quotation will be rejected, and the Exchange will cancel the Market Maker's current quotation on the same side of the market, if it is designated as MMALO, and has a limit price to buy (sell) that is more than a configurable number of MPVs above (below) the initial display price of the MMALO.
The Exchange proposes to provide Market Makers the ability to designate quotations as MMRP.
Similar to the proposed RPNP, an MMRP to buy (sell) that is displayed at a price one MPV below (above) the NBO (NBB) will trade at the NBO (NBB); provided, however, that if the NBO (NBB) updates to lock or cross the MMRP's display price, such MMRP will trade at its display price in time priority behind other eligible interest already displayed at that price.
An incoming MMRP that has a limit price more than a configurable number of MPVs above (below) the initial display price (on arrival) will first trade with marketable interest in the Consolidated Book up (down) to the NBO (NBB) and any remaining balance will be cancelled.
When a series is not open for trading (
To reflect the proposed quotation designations in Rule 6.37A-O, the Exchange proposes to re-organize paragraph (a) of the Rule by re-locating rule text stating that “a quotation will
The Exchange states that it will announce by Trader Update the implementation date of the proposed rule change within 90 days of the effective date of this proposed rule change.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
The Commission believes that by providing market participants with two new order types that build on the existing ALO and PNP Order functionality to allow for repricing instead of cancellation or rejection of orders under certain circumstances, the proposed rule change could give market participants greater flexibility and control over the circumstances under which their orders interact with contra side-interest on the Exchange. By increasing the opportunities for execution at multiple price points and encouraging the provision of greater displayed liquidity to the market, the proposal is reasonably designed to facilitate the mechanism of price discovery. The Commission also believes that ranking a repriced RALO or repriced RPNP behind other interest already eligible to trade at a price, as well as ranking such orders that simultaneously reprice to the same price by time of original order entry, is reasonably designed to preserve the principles of priority and therefore promote just and equitable principles of trade. Finally, the Commission notes other options exchanges offer similar order types as proposed by the Exchange.
The Commission notes that the proposal to add the two new quotation designations is designed to provide Market Makers with the same functionality for their quotations as are proposed for orders entered on the Exchange. The proposed quotation designations are similar to how the proposed RALO and RPNP will function and may enable Market Makers to exert greater control over how their quotes would interact with contra-side liquidity, while affording additional opportunities to provide liquidity to the market. The Commission notes that, absent the proposed repricing functionality associated with the MMALO and MMRP, a Market Maker quote that locks or crosses interest on the Exchange or an away market will reject or cancel. In the case of MMALOs, the proposal is reasonably designed to promote the display of liquidity because such quotations would be displayed at the next-best aggressive price instead of being cancelled. The Commission believes that the proposal will also ensure that an MMALO will always add liquidity as maker, rather than remove liquidity as taker, while ensuring that MMALOs priced too far through the contra-side interest on the Exchange or the NBBO will be rejected. As such, the proposed MMALO could assist Market Makers in maintaining a fair and orderly market and encourage Market Makers to provide displayed liquidity to the market, thus contributing to price discovery. In the case of MMRPs, the proposal may afford Market Makers more certainty when providing liquidity, while ensuring that MMRPs priced too far through the contra-side NBBO will cancel or reject after trading with any eligible interest on the Exchange. The Commission believes that ranking the repriced MMALO or repriced MMRP by time priority behind other interest already available to trade at a price preserves principles of priority and therefore would promote just and equitable principles of trade.
Further, the Commission believes that the proposed quotation designations are reasonably designed to provide Market Makers with a greater level of determinism, in terms of managing their exposure, and thus could encourage more aggressive liquidity provision, resulting in more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. This may help improve the mechanism of price discovery. Moreover, the Commission notes that other options exchanges have adopted quote types designed to strengthen market making.
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 715 regarding Cancel and Replace Orders.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 715 regarding Cancel and Replace Orders to: (i) Correct an inconsistency between the Exchange's rule text and the operation of the System
Today, a member has the option of either sending in a cancel order and then separately sending in a new order which serves as a replacement of the original order (two separate messages), or sending a single cancel and replace order in one message (
The Exchange also proposes to update the various rule references related to the price reasonability checks within this provision to refer to the current rules.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE American Rule 5.1E(a)(2) to remove the requirement that the Exchange file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) a Form 19b-4(e) for each “new derivative securities product” that will commence trading on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend NYSE American Rule 5.1E(a)(2)(A) to remove the requirement that the Exchange file with the Commission a Form 19b-4(e) for each “new derivative securities product” that will commence trading on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. The Exchange also proposes to renumber the remaining subsections of NYSE American Rule 5.1E(a)(2) to maintain an organized rule structure. The Exchange notes that a substantially identical proposed rule change by NYSE National, Inc. (“NYSE National”) was recently approved by the Commission.
NYSE American Rule 5.1E(a)(2)(A) sets forth the requirement for the Exchange to file with the Commission a Form 19b-4(e) with respect to each “new derivative securities product” that is traded pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. However, the Exchange believes that it should not be necessary to file a Form 19b-4(e) with the Commission if it begins trading a “new derivative securities product” pursuant to unlisted trading privileges, because Rule 19b-4(e)(1) under the Act refers to the “listing and trading” of a “new derivative securities product.” The Exchange believes that the requirements of that rule refer to when an exchange lists and trades a “new derivative securities product”, and not when an exchange seeks only to trade such product pursuant to unlisted trading privileges pursuant to Rule 12f-2 under the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
As noted above, the Commission recently approved a substantially identical proposed rule change by NYSE National.
With respect to the renumbering of current NYSE American Rules 5.1E(a)(2)(B)-(F), the Exchange believes that these changes are consistent with the Act because they will allow the Exchange to maintain a clear and organized rule structure, thus preventing investor confusion.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, removing the requirement to file a Form 19b-4(e) will serve to enhance competition by providing for the efficient addition of new derivative securities products for trading pursuant to unlisted trading privileges on the Exchange. To the extent that a competitor marketplace believes that the proposed rule change places it at a competitive disadvantage, it may file with the Commission a proposed rule change to adopt the same or similar rule.
In addition, the proposal to renumber current NYSE American Rules 5.1E(a)(2)(B)-(F) does not impact competition in any respect since it merely maintains a clear and organized rule structure.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; or (iii) become operative prior to 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission notes that the Exchange's proposal does not present any new or novel issues. Thus, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 701, entitled “Opening,” MRX Rule 803, entitled “Obligations of Market Makers” and MRX Rule 100, entitled “Definitions.”
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.
MRX proposes several amendments in this rule change. First, the Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 701, entitled “Opening” and MRX Rule 803, entitled “Obligations of Market Makers” to correct inconsistencies between the Exchange's rule text and the operation of the System. Second, the Exchange proposes to add definitions to MRX Rule 100 to define “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” options series. Third, the Exchange proposes to correct various cross references to Rule 100. Each amendment will be described in more detail below.
Today, for the Opening Process, MRX Rule 701(a)(8) defines a “Valid Width Quote” as a two-sided electronic quotation submitted by a Market Maker that consists of a bid/ask differential that is compliant with Rule 803(b)(4).
“To price options contracts fairly by, among other things, bidding and offering so as to create differences of no more than $5 between the bid and offer following the opening rotation in an equity or index options contract. Prior to the opening rotation, spread differentials shall be no more than $.25 between the bid and offer for each options contract for which the bid is less than $2, no more than $.40 where the bid is at least $2 but does not exceed $5, no more than $.50 where the bid is more than $5 but does not exceed $10, no more than $.80 where the bid is more than $10 but does not exceed $20, and no more than $1 where the bid is $20 or greater, provided that the Exchange may establish differences other than the above for one or more options series.
(i) The bid/offer differentials stated in subparagraph (b)(4) of this Rule shall not apply to in-the-money options series where the underlying securities market is wider than the differentials set forth above. For these series, the bid/ask differential may be as wide as the spread between the national best bid and offer in the underlying security.”
The Exchange proposes to codify its current practice and correctly reflect in its Rules that the Valid Width Quote in the Opening Process apply a primary market analysis, not a national best bid or offer (“NBBO”) analysis.
The Exchange believes that utilizing the primary market in the Opening Process is reasonable given the close connection between the primary market and the Opening Process. For example, MRX Rule 701(c)(2) provides, “For all options, the underlying security, including indexes, must be open on the primary market for a certain time period as determined by the Exchange for the Opening Process to commence. The time period shall be no less than 100 milliseconds and no more than 5 seconds.”
Today, in order to open, the Exchange requires either: (i) The Primary Market Maker's (“PMM”) Valid Width Quote; (ii) the Valid Width Quotes of at least two Competitive Market Makers (“CMM”); or (iii) if neither the PMM's Valid Width Quote nor the Valid Width Quotes of two CMMs have been submitted within such timeframe, one CMM has submitted a Valid Width Quote. The Exchange notes that it requires Market Makers to submit Valid Width Quotes during the Opening Process to guarantee liquidity, unlike other markets which may not require market makers to quote during the opening.
The Exchange proposes to codify its current practice and amend MRX Rule 803(b)(4) to adopt rule text which permits the Exchange intra-day discretion for bid/ask differentials similar to the discretion currently permitted in the Opening Process. The Exchange proposes to add a sentence to the end of the paragraph in MRX Rule 803(b)(4) indicating the Exchange may establish differences other than the above for one or more series or classes of options. The Exchange notes that it utilizes this discretion today to grant relief for individual options classes as well as relief for all option classes based upon specific criteria. Today, Market Makers may request quote relief. When determining whether to grant quote relief the Exchange considers, among other factors, the following: (i) Pending corporate actions with undisclosed or uncertain terms; (ii) company or industry news with anticipated significant market impact; (iii) government news of a sensational nature. The Exchange believes that it is necessary to grant quote relief in certain circumstances where a Market Maker may not have enough information to maintain fair and orderly markets. The Exchange notes that other markets have similar discretion for intra-day quotes today.
MRX rules currently do not define an “in-the-money” or “out-of-the-money” option series. As part of this rule change, the Exchange proposes to define these above-referenced terms within MRX Rule 100 to bring greater transparency to its rules with respect to Market Maker quoting. The Exchange proposes to define the term “in-the-money” at Rule 100(a)(28), which is currently reserved, as the following: For call options, all strike prices at or below the offer in the underlying security on the primary listing market; for put options, all strike prices at or above the bid in the underlying security on the primary listing market. The Exchange proposes to define the term “out-of-the-money” option at Rule 100(a)(41), which is currently reserved, to mean the following: For call options, all strike prices above the offer in the underlying security on the primary listing market; for put options, all strike prices below the bid in the underlying security on the primary listing market.
The Exchange has added these definitions into the existing rules in alphabetical order. The Exchange proposes to renumber the rules to account for the addition of these two new definitions and proposes to amend cross-references to Rule 100 within the Rulebook to reflect the proposed new numbering within Rule 100.
The Exchange proposes to amend cross-references to Rule 100 in Rules 713 and 720 to refer to the current definitions.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Opening Process to conform to current practice is consistent with the Act because while the Exchange believes that relying on the primary market or the NBBO accurately reflect the current trading environment and take into consideration market conditions, the Exchange's current Opening Process is designed to utilize the primary standard during the Opening Process.
The Exchange's proposal to amend its rule to permit intra-day discretion to conform to current practice is consistent with the Act because such discretion is necessary to permit the Exchange the ability to attract liquidity from Market Makers while also maintaining a fair and orderly market. Market Makers accept a certain amount of risk when quoting on the Exchange. The Exchange imposes quoting and other obligations on Market Makers.
The Exchange's proposal to define the terms “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” for purposes of Market Maker quoting obligations in Rules 701 and 803 is consistent with the Act and protects investors and the public interest by bringing greater transparency to the Rulebook. Each of these defined terms would apply for purposes of Market Maker quoting obligations in Rules 701 and 803. The Exchange notes that it specifically proposes to reference the rules related to Market Maker quoting obligations to avoid any confusion with the manner in which “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” options series are defined for purposes of other options rules.
The Exchange's proposal to amend cross-references to Rule 100 within Rules 713, 720 and Rule 1901 to refer to the current definitions is consistent with the Act because it will correct references to definitions.
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 codify its current practice of utilizing the primary market in the Opening Process does not unduly burden competition because the current practice maintains a close connection between the primary market and the Opening Process. The primary market reflects the current trading environment. The Exchange notes that the proposal does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition because Market Makers are the only market participants subject to quoting requirements and these participants have valuable information with respect to the underlying instrument under the current process to make informed decisions and take calculated risks in the marketplace when providing liquidity. Market Makers remain responsible for maintaining fair and orderly markets.
The Exchange's proposal to codify the Exchange's ability to permit intra-day discretion similar to the discretion currently permitted in the Opening Process does not impose an undue burden on competition because Market Makers are the only market participants subject to quoting requirements and the proposal specifically considers the need for Market Makers to have information to make informed decisions to make calculated risks in the marketplace so that they may provide liquidity while maintaining fair and orderly markets. The proposed amendments do not create an undue burden on inter-market competition because other options markets have the same intra-day requirements.
The Exchange's proposal to define the terms “in-the-money” or “out-of-the-money” for purposes of Market Maker quoting obligations in Rules 701 and 803 does not unduly burden competition, rather it adds greater transparency to the Rulebook and makes clear the applicability of the definitions to avoid confusion with respect to the remainder of the options rules.
The Exchange's proposal to amend cross-references to Rule 100 in Rules 713, 720 and Rule 1901 to refer to the current definitions does not unduly burden competition because it will correct references to definitions.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act, under sections 6(c) and 23(c) of the Act for an exemption from rule 23c-3 under the Act, and for an order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on December 31, 2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: 4640 Admiralty Way, 11th Floor, Marina del Rey, CA 90292.
Bruce R. MacNeil, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6817, or Kaitlin C. Bottock, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Initial Fund is a Delaware statutory trust that is registered under the Act as a non-diversified, closed-end management investment company. The Initial Fund's primary investment objective is to seek consistent current income. Capital preservation will be considered a secondary objective.
2. The Adviser, a Delaware limited liability company, is registered as an
3. The applicants seek an order to permit the Initial Fund to issue multiple classes of shares and to impose asset-based distribution and/or service fees and EWCs.
4. Applicants request that the order also apply to any continuously offered registered closed-end management investment company that has been previously organized or that may be organized in the future for which the Adviser, or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser, or any successor in interest to any such entity,
5. The Initial Fund anticipates making a continuous public offering of its shares in connection with its registration statement. Applicants state that additional offerings by any Fund relying on the order may be on a private placement or public offering basis. Shares of the Funds will not be listed on any securities exchange nor quoted on any quotation medium. The Funds do not expect there to be a secondary trading market for their shares.
6. If the requested relief is granted, the Initial Fund anticipates offering Class A Shares and Class I Shares. Each of the Class A Shares and Class I Shares will have their own fee and expense structure. The Funds may in the future offer additional classes of shares and/or another sales charge structure. Because of the different distribution fees, services and any other class expenses that may be attributable to each class of shares, the net income attributable to, and the dividends payable on, each class of shares may differ from each other.
7. Applicants state that, from time to time, the Fund may create additional classes of shares, the terms of which may differ from the initial classes pursuant to and in compliance with rule 18f-3 under the Act.
8. Applicants state that shares of a Fund may be subject to an early repurchase fee (“Early Repurchase Fee”) at a rate of no greater than 2% of the shareholder's repurchase proceeds if the interval between the date of purchase of the shares and the valuation date with respect to the repurchase of those shares is less than one year. Any Early Repurchase Fees will apply equally to all classes of shares of a Fund, consistent with section 18 of the Act and rule 18f-3 thereunder. To the extent a Fund determines to waive, impose scheduled variations of, or eliminate any Early Repurchase Fee, it will do so consistently with the requirements of rule 22d-1 under the Act as if the Early Repurchase Fee were a CDSL (defined below) and as if the Fund were an open-end investment company and the Fund's waiver of, scheduled variation in, or elimination of, any such Early Repurchase Fee will apply uniformly to all shareholders of the Fund regardless of class. Applicants state that the Initial Fund does not intend to impose an Early Repurchase Fee.
9. Applicants state that the Initial Fund has adopted a fundamental policy to repurchase a specified percentage of its shares at net asset value on a quarterly basis. Such repurchase offers will be conducted pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the Act. Any Future Funds will likewise adopt fundamental investment policies and make periodic repurchase offers to its shareholders in compliance with rule 23c-3 or will provide periodic liquidity with respect to its shares pursuant to rule 13e-4 under the Exchange Act.
10. Applicants represent that any asset-based service and/or distribution fees for each class of shares of the Funds will comply with the provisions of the FINRA Rule 2341(d) (“FINRA Sales Charge Rule”).
11. Each of the Funds will comply with any requirements that the Commission or FINRA may adopt regarding disclosure at the point of sale and in transaction confirmations about the costs and conflicts of interest arising out of the distribution of open-end investment company shares, and regarding prospectus disclosure of sales loads and revenue sharing arrangements, as if those requirements applied to the Fund. In addition, each Fund will contractually require that any distributor of the Fund's shares comply with such requirements in connection with the distribution of such Fund's shares.
12. Each Fund will allocate all expenses incurred by it among the various classes of shares based on the net assets of that Fund attributable to each class, except that the net asset value and expenses of each class will reflect the expenses associated with the distribution plan of that class (if any), service fees attributable to that class (if any), including transfer agency fees, and any other incremental expenses of that class. Expenses of a Fund allocated to a particular class of shares will be borne on a pro rata basis by each outstanding share of that class. Applicants state that each Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 under the Act as if it were an open-end investment company.
13. Applicants state that each Fund may impose an EWC on shares submitted for repurchase that have been held less than a specified period and may waive the EWC for certain categories of shareholders or transactions to be established from time to time. Applicants state that each Fund will apply the EWC (and any waivers or scheduled variations, or elimination of the EWC) uniformly to all shareholders
14. Each Fund operating as an interval fund pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the Act may offer its shareholders an exchange feature under which the shareholders of the Fund may, in connection with such Fund's periodic repurchase offers, exchange their shares of the Fund for shares of the same class of (i) registered open-end investment companies or (ii) other registered closed-end investment companies that comply with rule 23c-3 under the Act and continuously offer their shares at net asset value, that are in the Fund's group of investment companies (collectively, “Other Funds”). Shares of a Fund operating pursuant to rule 23c-3 that are exchanged for shares of Other Funds will be included as part of the amount of the repurchase offer amount for such Fund as specified in rule 23c-3 under the Act. Any exchange option will comply with rule 11a-3 under the Act, as if the Fund were an open-end investment company subject to rule 11a-3. In complying with rule 11a-3, each Fund will treat an EWC as if it were a contingent deferred sales load (“CDSL”).
1. Section 18(a)(2) of the Act provides that a closed-end investment company may not issue or sell a senior security that is a stock unless certain requirements are met. Applicants state that the creation of multiple classes of shares of the Funds may violate section 18(a)(2) because the Funds may not meet such requirements with respect to a class of shares that may be a senior security.
2. Section 18(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that a closed-end investment company may not issue or sell any senior security if, immediately thereafter, the company has outstanding more than one class of senior security. Applicants state that the creation of multiple classes of shares of the Funds may be prohibited by section 18(c), as a class may have priority over another class as to payment of dividends because shareholders of different classes would pay different fees and expenses.
3. Section 18(i) of the Act provides that each share of stock issued by a registered management investment company will be a voting stock and have equal voting rights with every other outstanding voting stock. Applicants state that multiple classes of shares of the Funds may violate section 18(i) of the Act because each class would be entitled to exclusive voting rights with respect to matters solely related to that class.
4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions from any provision of the Act, or from any rule or regulation under the Act, if and to the extent such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) to permit the Funds to issue multiple classes of shares.
5. Applicants submit that the proposed allocation of expenses relating to distribution and voting rights among multiple classes is equitable and will not discriminate against any group or class of shareholders. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangements would permit a Fund to facilitate the distribution of its securities and provide investors with a broader choice of shareholder services. Applicants assert that the proposed closed-end investment company multiple class structure does not raise the concerns underlying section 18 of the Act to any greater degree than open-end investment companies' multiple class structures that are permitted by rule 18f-3 under the Act. Applicants state that each Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 as if it were an open-end investment company.
1. Section 23(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that no registered closed-end investment company shall purchase securities of which it is the issuer, except: (a) On a securities exchange or other open market; (b) pursuant to tenders, after reasonable opportunity to submit tenders given to all holders of securities of the class to be purchased; or (c) under other circumstances as the Commission may permit by rules and regulations or orders for the protection of investors.
2. Rule 23c-3 under the Act permits an “interval fund” to make repurchase offers of between five and twenty-five percent of its outstanding shares at net asset value at periodic intervals pursuant to a fundamental policy of the interval fund. Rule 23c-3(b)(1) under the Act permits an interval fund to deduct from repurchase proceeds only a repurchase fee, not to exceed two percent of the proceeds, that is paid to the interval fund and is reasonably intended to compensate the fund for expenses directly related to the repurchase.
3. Section 23(c)(3) provides that the Commission may issue an order that would permit a closed-end investment company to repurchase its shares in circumstances in which the repurchase is made in a manner or on a basis that does not unfairly discriminate against any holders of the class or classes of securities to be purchased.
4. Applicants request relief under section 6(c), discussed above, and section 23(c)(3) from rule 23c-3 to the extent necessary for the Funds to impose EWCs on shares of the Funds submitted for repurchase that have been held for less than a specified period.
5. Applicants state that the EWCs they intend to impose are functionally similar to CDSLs imposed by open-end investment companies under rule 6c-10 under the Act. Rule 6c-10 permits open-end investment companies to impose CDSLs, subject to certain conditions. Applicants note that rule 6c-10 is grounded in policy considerations supporting the employment of CDSLs where there are adequate safeguards for the investor and state that the same policy considerations support imposition of EWCs in the interval fund context. In addition, applicants state that EWCs may be necessary for the distributor to recover distribution costs. Applicants represent that any EWC imposed by the Funds will comply with rule 6c-10 under the Act as if the rule were applicable to closed-end investment companies. The Funds will disclose EWCs in accordance with the requirements of Form N-1A concerning CDSLs.
1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from participating in or effecting any transaction in connection with any joint enterprise or joint arrangement in which the investment company participates unless the Commission issues an order permitting the transaction. In reviewing applications submitted under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the participation of the investment company in a joint enterprise or joint arrangement is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act, and the extent to which the participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
2. Rule 17d-3 under the Act provides an exemption from section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 to permit open-end investment companies to enter into distribution arrangements pursuant to rule 12b-1 under the Act. Applicants request an order under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to the extent necessary to permit the Fund to impose asset-based distribution and/or service fees. Applicants have agreed to comply with rules 12b-1 and 17d-3 as if those rules applied to closed-end investment companies, which they believe will resolve any concerns that might arise in connection with a Fund financing the distribution of its shares through asset-based distribution fees.
3. For the reasons stated above, applicants submit that the exemptions requested under section 6(c) are necessary and appropriate in the public interest and are consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants further submit that the relief requested pursuant to section 23(c)(3) will be consistent with the protection of investors and will insure that applicants do not unfairly discriminate against any holders of the class of securities to be purchased. Finally, applicants state that the Funds' imposition of asset-based distribution and/or service fees is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and does not involve participation on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following condition:
Each Fund relying on the order will comply with the provisions of rules 6c-10, 12b-1, 17d-3, 18f-3, 22d-1, and, where applicable, 11a-3 under the Act, as amended from time to time, as if those rules applied to closed-end management investment companies, and will comply with the FINRA Sales Charge Rule, as amended from time to time, as if that rule applied to all closed-end management investment companies.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On October 18, 2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend BZX Rule 11.23(c)(2)(B) to change how it would determine the BZX Official Closing Price
Specifically, if the Final Last Sale Eligible Trade occurred within the final five minutes before the end of Regular Trading Hours, the Final Last Sale Eligible Trade will be the BZX Official Closing Price.
If the BZX Official Closing Price cannot be determined under proposed BZX Rule 11.23(c)(2)(B)(i) or (ii), the Final Last Sale Eligible Trade will be the BZX Official Closing Price.
The Exchange states that it will implement the proposed rule change as soon as is practicable after the Commission's approval and will announce the implementation date via Trade Desk Notice.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act
The Commission notes that the primary listing market's official closing price for a security is relied upon by market participants for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, calculation of index values, calculation of the net asset value of mutual funds and exchange-traded products, the price of derivatives that are based on the security, and certain types of trading benchmarks such as volume weighted average price strategies. For Derivatives Securities Products, in circumstances where there is no Closing Auction, or the Closing Auction trade consists of less than one round lot, the Exchange proposes to utilize more recent firm quotations instead of less recent trades, as such trades may provide less information about the current value of a security. The Exchange asserts that by doing so, the BZX Official Closing Price for such a Derivative Securities Product would be more reflective of the true and current value of such security on that trading day than otherwise would under the Exchange's current rule, particularly for a Derivative Securities Product that is thinly traded.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 20, 2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On August 7, 2018, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 715 regarding Cancel and Replace Orders.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 715 regarding Cancel and Replace Orders to: (i) Correct an inconsistency between the Exchange's rule text and the operation of the System
Today, a member has the option of either sending in a cancel order and then separately sending in a new order which serves as a replacement of the original order (two separate messages), or sending a single cancel and replace order in one message (
The Exchange also proposes to update the various rule references related to the price reasonability checks within this provision to refer to the current rules.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. All of the proposed changes are intended to bring greater transparency to the Exchange's Rulebook, and therefore does not unduly burden competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend BX Options Rules at Chapter I, Section 1, specifically the defined terms “in the money” and “out-of-the-money” at BX Options Rules at Chapter I, Sections 1(a)(68) and (69), respectively.
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.
BX rules define an “in-the-money” option series at Chapter I, Section 1(a)(68). Currently the term “in-the-money” means, for call options, all strike prices below the offer in the underlying security on the primary listing market; for put options, all strike prices above the bid in the underlying security on the primary listing market. BX rules define an “out-of-the-money” option series at Chapter I, Section 1(a)(69). Currently, the term “out-of-the-money” shall mean the following: For call options, all strike prices above the offer in the underlying security on the primary listing market; for put options, all strike prices below the bid in the underlying security on the primary
At this time, the Exchange proposes to amend the defined term “in-the-money” to include an “at-the-money” option. The term “in-the-money” would be defined with this amendment to mean, for call options, all strike prices at or below the offer in the underlying security on the primary listing market; for put options, all strike prices at or above the bid in the underlying security on the primary listing market. The Exchange believes that amending the term “in-the-money” to include options that are “at-the-money” will bring greater transparency to the manner in which the Exchange handles “at-the-money” options.
The Exchange proposes to limit the defined terms “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” option series for purposes of Market Maker quoting obligations in Chapter VII, Section 6. The Exchange notes that it specifically proposes to reference the rules related to Market Maker quoting obligations to avoid any confusion with the manner in which “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” options series are defined for purposes of other options rules. This limitation represents current practice. The Exchange also notes that it is conforming this term across its Nasdaq affiliated markets.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to note that the defined terms “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” would apply for purposes of Market Maker quoting obligations in Chapter VII, Section 6 would avoid any confusion with the manner in which “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” options series are defined for purposes of other options rules. The limitation of the defined terms for purposes of Market Maker quoting obligations in Chapter VII, Section 6 will bring transparency to the current use of the defined terms.
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 amend the defined term “in-the-money” to include options that are “at-the-money” and add limitations to the use of the defined terms “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” for purposes of Market Maker quoting obligations in Chapter VII, Section 6 do not unduly burden competition, rather these amendments add greater transparency to the Rulebook and makes clear the applicability of the definitions to avoid confusion with respect to the remainder of the options rules.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rule 1017, entitled “Openings in Options,” Phlx Rule 1014, entitled “Obligations and Restrictions Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders,” and Rule 1000, entitled “Applicability, Definitions an References.”
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.
Phlx proposes several amendments in this rule change. First, the Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rule 1017, entitled “Openings in Options” and Phlx Rule 1014, entitled “Obligations and Restrictions Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders” to correct inconsistencies between the Exchange's rule text and the operation of the System. Second, the Exchange proposes to add definitions to Phlx Rule 1000 to define “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” option series. Third, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1014 to correct an error regarding rounding. Each amendment will be described in more detail below.
Today, Phlx Rule 1017(a)(ix) defines a Valid Width Quotes as a two-sided electronic quotation submitted by a Phlx Electronic Market Maker (which includes a Specialist
The Exchange proposes to codify its current practice and correctly reflect in its Rules that the Valid Width Quote in the Opening Process apply a primary market analysis, not a national best bid or offer (“NBBO”) analysis.
The Exchange believes that utilizing the primary market in the Opening Process is reasonable given the close connection between the primary market and the Opening Process. For example, Phlx Rule 1017(d)(ii) provides, “For all options, the underlying security, including indexes, must be open on the primary market for a certain time period as determined by the Exchange for the Opening Process to commence. The time period shall be no less than 100 milliseconds and no more than 5 seconds.”
Today, in order to open, the Exchange requires either: (i) The Specialist's Valid
Phlx rules currently do not define an “in-the-money” or “out-of-the-money” option series. As part of this rule change, the Exchange proposes to define these above-referenced terms within Phlx Rule 1000(b) to bring greater transparency to its rules with respect to Phlx Electronic Market Maker quoting. The Exchange proposes to define the term “in-the-money” at Rule 1000(b)(51) as the following: For call options, all strike prices at or below the offer in the underlying security on the primary listing market; for put options, all strike prices at or above the bid in the underlying security on the primary listing market. The Exchange proposes to define the term “out-of-the-money” option at Rule 1000(b)(52), which is currently reserved, to mean the following: For call options, all strike prices above the offer in the underlying security on the primary listing market; for put options, all strike prices below the bid in the underlying security on the primary listing market.
The Exchange proposes to codify current rounding practice by amending Rule 1014(c)(i)(A)(1)(a). Today, Rule 1014(c)(i)(A)(1)(a) provides that rounding is up when referring to decimal equivalent. Today, the decimal equivalent is rounded down not up. The Exchange proposes to conform its rule text to the current practice. The Exchange believes that the manner in which the Exchange rounds is immaterial, however the Exchange believes that it is important to disclose its method of rounding and uniformly apply such rounding. The Exchange proposes this amendment to make clear the manner in which it rounds the decimal equivalent. Today the Exchange uniformly applies this rounding to all market maker participants and will continue to apply it in a uniform manner.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Opening Process to conform to current practice is consistent with the Act because while the Exchange believes that relying on the primary market or the NBBO accurately reflect the current trading environment and take into consideration market conditions, the Exchange's current Opening Process is designed to utilize the primary standard during the Opening Process.
The Exchange's proposal to define the terms “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” for purposes of Phlx Electronic Market Maker quoting obligations in Rules 1014 and 1017 is consistent with the Act and protects investors and the public interest by bringing greater transparency to the Rulebook. Each of these defined terms would apply for purposes of Phlx Electronic Market Maker quoting obligations in Rules 1014 and 1017. The Exchange notes that it specifically proposes to reference the rules related to Phlx Electronic Market Maker quoting obligations to avoid any confusion with the manner in which “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” options series are defined for purposes of other options rules.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Rule 1014(c)(i)(A)(1)(a) to codify the Exchange's current practice of rounding down when referring to decimal equivalent is consistent with the protection of investor and the public interest because the Exchange is adding transparency to its current rule by disclosing its method of rounding.
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 codify its current practice of utilizing the primary market in the Opening Process does not unduly burden competition because the current practice maintains a close connection between the primary market and the Opening Process. The primary market reflects the current trading environment. The Exchange notes that the proposal does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition because Phlx Electronic Market Makers are the only market participants subject to quoting requirements and these participants have valuable information with respect to the underlying instrument under the current process to make informed decisions and take calculated risks in the marketplace when providing liquidity. Phlx Electronic Market Makers remain responsible for maintaining fair and orderly markets.
The Exchange's proposal to define the terms “in-the-money” or “out-of-the-money” for purposes of Phlx Electronic Market Maker quoting obligations in Rules 1014 and 1017 does not unduly burden competition, rather it adds greater transparency to the Rulebook and makes clear the applicability of the definitions to avoid confusion with respect to the remainder of the options rules.
The Exchange's proposal to codify its current practice of rounding down when referring to decimal equivalent within Rule 1014(c)(i)(A)(1)(a) does not impose an unduly burden competition because the Exchange continues to uniformly apply its rounding methodology with respect to its market making 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)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend The Nasdaq Options Market LLC (“NOM”) Rules at Chapter I, Section 1, specifically the defined terms “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” at NOM Rules at Chapter I, Section 1(a)(67) and (68), respectively.
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.
NOM rules define an “in-the-money” option series at Chapter I, Section 1(a)(67). Currently the term “in-the-money” means, for call options, all strike prices below the offer in the underlying security on the primary listing market; for put options, all strike prices above the bid in the underlying security on the primary listing market. NOM rules define an “out-of-the-money” option series at Chapter I, Section 1(a)(68). Currently, the term “out-of-the-money” shall mean the following: For call options, all strike prices above the offer in the underlying security on the primary listing market; for put options, all strike prices below the bid in the underlying security on the primary listing market. The Exchange proposes to amend these defined terms as specified below.
At this time, the Exchange proposes to amend the defined term “in-the-money” to include an “at-the-money” option. The term “in-the-money” would be defined with this amendment to mean, for call options, all strike prices at or below the offer in the underlying security on the primary listing market; for put options, all strike prices at or above the bid in the underlying security on the primary listing market. The Exchange believes that amending the term “in-the-money” to include options that are “at-the-money” will bring greater transparency to the manner in which the Exchange handles “at-the-money” options.
The Exchange proposes to limit the defined terms “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” option series for purposes of Market Maker quoting obligations in Chapter VII, Section 6. The Exchange notes that it specifically proposes to reference the rules related to Market Maker quoting obligations to avoid any confusion with the manner in which “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” options series are defined for purposes of other options rules. This limitation represents current practice. The Exchange also notes that it is conforming this term across its Nasdaq affiliated markets.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to note that the defined terms “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” would apply for purposes of Market Maker quoting obligations in Chapter VII, Section 6 would avoid any confusion with the manner in which “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” options series are defined for purposes of other options rules. The limitation of the defined terms for purposes of Market Maker quoting obligations in Chapter VII, Section 6 will bring transparency to the current use of the defined terms.
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 amend the defined term “in-the-money” to include options that are “at-the-money” and add limitations to the use of the defined terms “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” for purposes of Market Maker quoting obligations in Chapter VII, Section 6 do not unduly burden competition, rather these amendments add greater transparency to the Rulebook and makes clear the applicability of the definitions to avoid confusion with respect to the remainder of the options rules.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend CHX Article 22, Rule 6(a) to remove the requirement that the Exchange file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) a Form 19b-4(e) for each “new derivative securities product” that will commence trading on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend CHX Article 22, Rule 6(a) to remove the requirement that the Exchange file with the Commission a Form 19b-4(e) for each “new derivative securities product” that will commence trading on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. The Exchange notes that a substantially identical proposed rule change by NYSE National, Inc. (“NYSE National”) was recently approved by the Commission.
CHX Article 22, Rule 6(a) sets forth the requirement for the Exchange to file with the Commission a Form 19b-4(e) with respect to each “new derivative securities product” that is traded pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. However, the Exchange believes that it should not be necessary to file a Form 19b-4(e) with the Commission if it begins trading a “new derivative securities product” pursuant to unlisted trading privileges, because Rule 19b-4(e)(1) under the Act refers to the “listing and trading” of a “new derivative securities product.” The Exchange believes that the requirements of that rule refer to when an exchange lists and trades a “new derivative securities product”, and not when an exchange seeks only to trade such product pursuant to unlisted trading privileges pursuant to Rule 12f-2 under the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
As noted above, the Commission recently approved a substantially identical proposed rule change by NYSE National.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, removing the requirement to file a Form 19b-4(e) will serve to enhance competition by providing for the efficient addition of new derivative securities products for trading pursuant to unlisted trading privileges on the Exchange. To the extent that a competitor marketplace believes that the proposed rule change places it at a competitive disadvantage, it may file with the Commission a proposed rule change to adopt the same or similar rule.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; or (iii) become operative prior to 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission notes that CHX's proposal does not present any new or novel issues. Thus, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest and hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 9, 2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposal so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change in light of the recently filed Amendment No. 1. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend GEMX Rule 701, entitled “Opening,” GEMX Rule 803, entitled “Obligations of Market Makers” and GEMX Rule 100, entitled “Definitions.”
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.
GEMX proposes several amendments in this rule change. First, the Exchange proposes to amend GEMX Rule 701, entitled “Opening” and GEMX Rule 803, entitled “Obligations of Market Makers” to correct inconsistencies between the Exchange's rule text and the operation of the System. Second, the Exchange proposes to add definitions to GEMX Rule 100 to define “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” option series. Third, the Exchange proposes to correct various cross references to Rule 100. Each amendment will be described in more detail below.
Today, for the Opening Process, GEMX Rule 701(a)(8) defines a “Valid Width Quote” as a two-sided electronic quotation submitted by a Market Maker that consists of a bid/ask differential that is compliant with Rule 803(b)(4).
“To price options contracts fairly by, among other things, bidding and offering so as to create differences of no more than $5 between the bid and offer following the opening rotation in an equity or index options contract. Prior to the opening rotation, spread differentials shall be no more than
(i) The bid/offer differentials stated in subparagraph (b)(4) of this Rule shall not apply to in-the-money options series where the underlying securities market is wider than the differentials set forth above. For these series, the bid/ask differential may be as wide as the spread between the national best bid and offer in the underlying security.”
The Exchange proposes to codify its current practice and correctly reflect in its Rules that the Valid Width Quote in the Opening Process apply a primary market analysis, not a national best bid or offer (“NBBO”) analysis.
The Exchange believes that utilizing the primary market in the Opening Process is reasonable given the close connection between the primary market and the Opening Process. For example, GEMX Rule 701(c)(2) provides, “For all options, the underlying security, including indexes, must be open on the primary market for a certain time period as determined by the Exchange for the Opening Process to commence. The time period shall be no less than 100 milliseconds and no more than 5 seconds.”
Today, in order to open, the Exchange requires either: (i) The Primary Market Maker's (“PMM”) Valid Width Quote; (ii) the Valid Width Quotes of at least two Competitive Market Makers (“CMM”); or (iii) if neither the PMM's Valid Width Quote nor the Valid Width Quotes of two CMMs have been submitted within such timeframe, one CMM has submitted a Valid Width Quote. The Exchange notes that it requires Market Makers to submit Valid Width Quotes during the Opening Process to guarantee liquidity, unlike other markets which may not require market makers to quote during the opening.
The Exchange proposes to codify its current practice and amend GEMX Rule 803(b)(4) to adopt rule text which permits the Exchange intra-day discretion for bid/ask differentials similar to the discretion currently permitted in the Opening Process. The Exchange proposes to add a sentence to the end of the paragraph in GEMX Rule 803(b)(4) indicating the Exchange may establish differences other than the above for one or more series or classes of options. The Exchange notes that it utilizes this discretion today to grant relief for individual options classes as well as relief for all option classes based upon specific criteria. Today, Market Makers may request quote relief. When determining whether to grant quote relief the Exchange considers, among other factors, the following: (i) Pending corporate actions with undisclosed or uncertain terms; (ii) company or industry news with anticipated significant market impact; (iii) government news of a sensational nature. The Exchange believes that it is necessary to grant quote relief in certain circumstances where a Market Maker may not have enough information to maintain fair and orderly markets. The Exchange notes that other markets have similar discretion for intra-day quotes today.
GEMX rules currently do not define an “in-the-money” or “out-of-the-money” option series. As part of this rule change, the Exchange proposes to define these above-referenced terms within GEMX Rule 100 to bring greater transparency to its rules with respect to Market Maker quoting. The Exchange proposes to define the term “in-the-money” option at Rule 100(a)(28), which is currently reserved, as the following: For call options, all strike prices at or below the offer in the underlying security on the primary listing market; for put options, all strike prices at or above the bid in the underlying security on the primary listing market. The Exchange proposes to define an “out-of-the-money” option at Rule 100(a)(41), which is currently reserved, to mean the following: for call options, all strike prices above the offer in the underlying security on the primary listing market; for put options, all strike prices below the bid in the underlying security on the primary listing market.
The Exchange has added these definitions into the existing rule in alphabetical order. The Exchange proposes to renumber the rule to account for the addition of these two new definitions and proposes to amend cross-references to Rule 100 within the Rulebook to reflect the proposed new numbering within Rule 100.
The Exchange proposes to amend cross-references to Rule 100 in Rules 713 and 720 to refer to the current definitions.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Opening Process to conform to current practice is consistent with the Act because while the Exchange believes that relying on the primary market or the NBBO accurately reflect the current trading environment and take into consideration market conditions, the Exchange's current Opening Process is designed to utilize the primary standard during the Opening Process.
The Exchange's proposal to amend its rule to permit intra-day discretion to conform to current practice is consistent with the Act because such discretion is necessary to permit the Exchange the ability to attract liquidity from Market Makers while also maintaining a fair and orderly market. Market Makers accept a certain amount of risk when quoting on the Exchange. The Exchange imposes quoting and other obligations on Market Makers.
The Exchange's proposal to define the terms “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” for purposes of Market Maker quoting obligations in Rules 701 and 803 is consistent with the Act and protects investors and the public interest by bringing greater transparency to the Rulebook. Each of these defined terms would apply for purposes of Market Maker quoting obligations in Rules 701 and 803. The Exchange notes that it specifically proposes to reference the rules related to Market Maker quoting obligations to avoid any confusion with the manner in which “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” options series are defined for purposes of other options rules.
The Exchange's proposal to amend cross-references to Rule 100 within Rules 713, 720 and Rule 1901 to refer to the current definitions is consistent with the Act because it will correct references to definitions.
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 codify its current practice of utilizing the primary market in the Opening Process does not unduly burden competition because the current practice maintains a close connection between the primary market and the Opening Process. The primary market reflects the current trading environment. The Exchange notes that the proposal does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition because Market Makers are the only market participants subject to quoting requirements and these participants have valuable information with respect to the underlying instrument under the current process to make informed decisions and take calculated risks in the marketplace when providing liquidity. Market Makers remain responsible for maintaining fair and orderly markets.
The Exchange's proposal to codify the Exchange's ability to permit intra-day discretion similar to the discretion currently permitted in the Opening Process does not impose an undue burden on competition because Market Makers are the only market participants subject to quoting requirements and the proposal specifically considers the need for Market Makers to have information to make informed decisions to make calculated risks in the marketplace so that they may provide liquidity while maintaining fair and orderly markets. The proposed amendments do not create undue burdens on inter-market competition because other options markets have the same intra-day requirements.
The Exchange's proposal to define the terms “in-the-money” or “out-of-the-money” for purposes of Market Maker quoting obligations in Rules 701 and 803 does not unduly burden competition, rather it adds greater transparency to the Rulebook and makes clear the applicability of the definitions to avoid confusion with respect to the remainder of the options rules.
The Exchange's proposal to amend cross-references to Rule 100 in Rules 713, 720 and Rule 1901 to refer to the current definitions does not unduly burden competition because it will correct references to definitions.
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
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 7, 2018, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
On October 3, 2018, CBOE withdrew the proposed rule change
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 Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 715 regarding Cancel and Replace Orders.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 715 regarding Cancel and Replace Orders to: (i) Correct an inconsistency between the Exchange's rule text and the operation of the System
Today, a member has the option of either sending in a cancel order and then separately sending in a new order which serves as a replacement of the original order (two separate messages), or sending a single cancel and replace order in one message (
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. All of the proposed changes are intended to bring greater transparency to the Exchange's Rulebook, and therefore does not unduly burden competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change would amend the Procedures, set forth in the DTC Settlement Guide,
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change would amend the Settlement Guide to allow DTC to provide Status Information for Institutional Transactions to a Matching Utility, as described below.
DTC may accept Institutional Transactions from a Matching Utility that is (i) a clearing agency registered pursuant to Section 17A of the Act
In accordance with the Settlement Guide, for a Matching Utility to establish and maintain a connection with DTC, the Matching Utility must be able to balance with DTC in an automated way
The submission of an Affirmed Transaction by the Matching Utility to DTC, on behalf of a Participant, constitutes the duly authorized instruction of the Participant to DTC to process the Affirmed Transaction in accordance with the Rules and Procedures.
As more fully described below, a transaction submitted to DTC for processing may be subject to a processing exception (“Exception”), causing it to pend in the DTC system or not be processed because the transaction does not satisfy certain requirements and/or controls set forth in the Rules and Service Guide. A Matching Utility that has submitted an Institutional Transaction to DTC, or is otherwise involved with the matching of a transaction, does not receive Status Information regarding the transaction and is therefore unable to provide services to facilitate resolution of processing Exceptions occurring at DTC. Therefore, in order to resolve an Exception, the Participants to an Institutional Transaction must (i) access Status Information directly through the DTC Settlement User Interface and (ii), as necessary, supply the information to their customers that are counterparties to the transaction on their books, in order to facilitate the coordination of the resolution of the Exception among the counterparties. Pursuant to the proposed rule change, DTC would amend the Settlement Guide to allow DTC to provide Status Information for an Institutional Transaction to a Matching Utility. The proposal would allow the Matching Utility to further provide the Status Information to the counterparties to the Institutional Transaction to facilitate coordination of the resolution of Exceptions among counterparties.
Exceptions may arise at various points during the processing of an Institutional Transaction submitted to DTC.
After an Affirmed Transaction, or other transaction that has been submitted directly by a Participant, has been accepted by DTC, the transaction must be approved by the Receiver through the Receiver Authorized Delivery function (“RAD”), before it will be staged for DTC settlement processing in accordance with the Rules and the Settlement Guide.
When processing a transaction for settlement, DTC checks risk controls, including the Net Debit Cap and Collateral Monitor, and inventory controls of the Participants to the transaction.
An incomplete transaction recycles in DTC's system until the end of the day, and if it remains incomplete at the end of the day it will be dropped.
An Exception creates inefficiencies for parties to the applicable Institutional Transaction. If an Institutional Transaction results in an Exception, information regarding the status of the Institutional Transaction may need to be exchanged by Participants and others involved in the trade life cycle, including buy-side firms, broker/
Any potential delays and/or errors in communicating the existence of an Exception and related Status Information among counterparties may impede the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of affected Institutional Transactions. A Participant's timely receipt of information relating to an Exception would facilitate its ability to take an action to facilitate the processing of the related transaction. Examples of some of the actions the Participant may take include, as applicable, (i) making a settlement progress payment (“Settlement Progress Payment”)
DTC has received a request from its Matching Utility affiliate, ITP Matching (US) LLC (“ITP”), to receive Status Information so that ITP may transmit the Status Information to counterparties in a centralized format. DTC believes that distribution of Status Information to relevant counterparties in a centralized format would facilitate Participants' ability to monitor Exceptions and coordinate with their institutional customers in order to resolve Exceptions.
Pursuant to the proposed rule change, in order to facilitate more seamless transmission of the Status Information for (i) Affirmed Transactions and (ii) other Institutional Transactions that may have been confirmed at a Matching Utility and received a Control Number, and are submitted directly to DTC by a Participant in an instruction containing the Control Number, (collectively, “Eligible Transactions”) to Participants and facilitate their ability to manage Exceptions, DTC proposes to amend the Settlement Guide to provide that DTC may provide Status Information on Eligible Transactions to the applicable Matching Utility that submitted the transaction to DTC, or with respect to which its Control Number is included in transaction details provided by a Participant,
DTC believes that sharing Status Information with a Matching Utility, on behalf of a Participant, would foster coordination among persons engaged in the clearance and settlement of Institutional Transactions by facilitating enhanced access to information for relevant parties that may promote their ability to manage Exceptions.
Pursuant to the proposed rule change, DTC proposes to revise the Settlement Guide to allow DTC to provide Status Information of (i) Affirmed Transactions and (ii) other institutional transactions to a Matching Utility that requests such information, but only for those transactions that are associated with a Control Number relating to the Matching Utility. The proposed text to the Settlement Guide would also (x) describe the types of Status Information and related Identifying Information that would be shared with a Matching Utility in this regard, as described above and (y) provide that DTC may charge a fee (“Status Information Fee”) to a Matching Utility that receives Status Information as set forth in the DTC Fee Guide.
The proposed rule change would require that prior to providing Status Information to a Matching Utility, DTC would obtain the written agreement, in such form as determined by DTC from time to time (“Status Information Agreement”), from the Matching Utility that includes (i) a request from the Matching Utility to receive Status Information from DTC, (ii) an agreement by the Matching Utility that the Matching Utility will not distribute Status Information to any third party other than (a) the Participants indicated on the Status Information and (b) the institutional customers that are counterparties to the transaction for which the Participants indicated on the Status Information are acting with respect to the transaction, (iii) the agreement of the Matching Utility that the Matching Utility will indemnify, hold harmless and agree, on demand, to reimburse DTC, its stockholders, officers, directors and employees from and against and for any and all claims, liabilities, obligations, damages, actions, penalties, losses, costs, expenses and disbursements, including, without limitation, attorneys' fees and disbursements (“Claims”), which they may sustain by reason of DTC's providing Status Information to the Matching Utility, except for any Claims
The proposed rule change would be effective upon approval of the proposed rule change by the Commission.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(20)
DTC believes the proposed rule change could impact competition.
(C)
Written comments relating to this proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by DTC.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2018-010. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will
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”) proposes to adopt a shell structure for the Cboe Options rulebook (“Rulebook”) in connection with the migration of the Exchange to Bats technology.
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.
In 2016, the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc. (formerly named CBOE Holdings, Inc.) (“Cboe Global”), which is also the parent company of Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (“C2”), acquired Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX” or “EDGX Options”), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or “BZX Options”), and Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX” and, together with Cboe Options, C2, EDGX, EDGA, and BZX, the “Cboe Affiliated Exchanges”). The Cboe Affiliated Exchanges are working to align certain system functionality, retaining only intended differences between the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, in the context of a technology migration. Cboe Options intends to migrate its technology onto the same trading platform as the other Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, which the Exchange expects to complete on October 7, 2019. Cboe Options believes offering similar functionality to the extent practicable will reduce potential confusion for market participants.
In connection with this technology migration, the Exchange proposes to add a shell structure that would reside alongside its current Rulebook. The proposed shell outlines the various chapters, and sections within certain chapters, of the future Rulebook, as well as contains new chapter numbering. In subsequent rule changes, Cboe Options will amend its Rules to reflect proposed changes to its system in connection with the system migration. Cboe Options will also submit subsequent rule changes to move rule text that will not change as part of the technology migration from the current Rulebook to the future Rulebook.
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.
Cboe Options does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change makes nonsubstantive changes and has no impact on trading on the Exchange, as they are intended to start the process of updating and reorganizing the Exchange's Rulebook in connection with the migration of its system to Bats technology.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
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 the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to relocate Rule 404, Interpretations and Policies .11 (“SPIKES Index Options”) to Rule 510, Minimum Price Variations and Minimum Trading Increments, new Interpretations and Policies .03, and to make a non-substantive conforming change to a cross-reference in the rule.
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 relocate existing Exchange Rule 404, Interpretations and Policies .11, SPIKES Index Options, to Rule 510 (“Minimum Price Variations and Minimum Trading Increments”), Interpretations and Policies .03. This proposal seeks to better organize the rules of the Exchange in order to make the rules easier to read and to ensure that this rule is located in the appropriate chapter. The Exchange also proposes to make a non-substantive conforming change to a cross-reference in the rule, in order to reflect the relocation of the rule to a more suitable chapter in the Exchange's rulebook. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to change the current language which states that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of this Rule 404, the minimum trading increment for options on the SPIKES Index shall be as follows: (1) If the options series is trading at less than $3.00, five (5) cents; and (2) if the options series is trading at $3.00 or higher, ten (10) cents,” to now read “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of this Rule 510, the minimum trading increment for options on the SPIKES Index shall be as follows: (1) If the options series is trading at less than $3.00, five (5) cents; and (2) if the options series is trading at $3.00 or higher, ten (10) cents,” in order to update the cross-reference in the rule.
The Exchange notes that the changes proposed herein are non-substantive rule changes, and do not modify the application of the rule which the Exchange proposes to relocate. The Exchange believes that by now relocating this rule, and making a non-substantive conforming change to a cross-reference within the rule, it will relocate the rule into a more appropriate chapter in the Exchange's rulebook.
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes the proposed change promotes just and equitable principles of trade and removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed rule change improves the way the Exchange's rulebook is organized, making it easier to read, and avoids confusion by relocating a rule which is more appropriately located in another chapter of the Exchange's rulebook; and makes a non-substantive conforming change to a cross-reference in the rule, in order to reflect the relocation of the rule to a more suitable chapter in the Exchange's rulebook, therefore, helping market participants to better understand the rules of the Exchange. The Exchange notes that the proposed change does not alter the application of the rule. As such, the proposed amendment would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national exchange system. In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed change will provide greater clarity to Members
MIAX Options does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will have no impact on competition as it is not designed to address any competitive issues but rather is designed to add additional clarity to existing rules by making a non-substantive change to relocate the rule to a different chapter in the Exchange's rulebook, and by making a conforming change to an existing cross-reference in the rule, in order to reflect the relocation of the rule to a more suitable chapter in the Exchange's rulebook.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition as the Rules apply equally to all Exchange Members.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 701, entitled “Opening,” ISE Rule 803, entitled “Obligations of Market Makers” and ISE Rule 100, entitled “Definitions.”
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.
ISE proposes several amendments in this rule change. First, the Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 701, entitled “Opening” and ISE Rule 803, entitled “Obligations of Market Makers” to correct inconsistencies between the Exchange's rule text and the operation of the System. Second, the Exchange proposes to add definitions to ISE Rule 100 to define “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” option series. Third, the Exchange proposes to correct various cross references to Rule 100. Each amendment will be described in more detail below.
Today, for the Opening Process, ISE Rule 701(a)(8) defines a “Valid Width Quote” as a two-sided electronic quotation submitted by a Market Maker that consists of a bid/ask differential that is compliant with Rule 803(b)(4).
“To price options contracts fairly by, among other things, bidding and offering so as to create differences of no more than $5 between the bid and offer following the opening rotation in an equity or index options contract. Prior to the opening rotation, spread differentials shall be no more than $.25 between the bid and offer for each options contract for which the bid is less than $2, no more than $.40 where the bid is at least $2 but does not exceed $5, no more than $.50 where the bid is more than $5 but does not exceed $10, no more than $.80 where the bid is more than $10 but does not exceed $20, and no more than $1 where the bid is $20 or greater, provided that the Exchange may establish differences other than the above for one or more options series.
(i) The bid/offer differentials stated in subparagraph (b)(4) of this Rule shall not apply to in-the-money options series where the underlying securities market is wider than the differentials set forth above. For these series, the bid/ask differential may be as wide as the spread between the national best bid and offer in the underlying security.”
The Exchange proposes to codify its current practice and correctly reflect in its Rules that the Valid Width Quote in the Opening Process apply a primary market analysis, not a national best bid or offer (“NBBO”) analysis.
The Exchange believes that utilizing the primary market in the Opening Process is reasonable given the close connection between the primary market and the Opening Process. For example, ISE Rule 701(c)(2) provides, “For all options, the underlying security, including indexes, must be open on the primary market for a certain time period as determined by the Exchange for the Opening Process to commence. The time period shall be no less than 100 milliseconds and no more than 5 seconds.”
Today, in order to open, the Exchange requires either: (i) The Primary Market Maker's (“PMM”) Valid Width Quote; (ii) the Valid Width Quotes of at least two Competitive Market Makers (“CMM”); or (iii) if neither the PMM's Valid Width Quote nor the Valid Width Quotes of two CMMs have been submitted within such timeframe, one CMM has submitted a Valid Width Quote. The Exchange notes that it requires Market Makers to submit Valid Width Quotes during the Opening Process to guarantee liquidity, unlike other markets which may not require market makers to quote during the opening.
The Exchange proposes to codify its current practice and amend ISE Rule 803(b)(4) to adopt rule text which permits the Exchange intra-day discretion for bid/ask differentials similar to the discretion currently permitted in the Opening Process. The Exchange proposes to add a sentence to the end of the paragraph in ISE Rule 803(b)(4) indicating the Exchange may establish differences other than the above for one or more series or classes of options. The Exchange notes that it utilizes this discretion today to grant relief for individual options classes as well as relief for all option classes based upon specific criteria. Today, Market Makers may request quote relief. When determining whether to grant quote relief the Exchange considers, among other factors, the following: (i) Pending corporate actions with undisclosed or uncertain terms; (ii) company or industry news with anticipated significant market impact; (iii) government news of a sensational nature. The Exchange believes that it is necessary to grant quote relief in certain circumstances where a Market Maker may not have enough information to maintain fair and orderly markets. The Exchange notes that other markets have similar discretion for intra-day quotes today.
ISE rules currently do not define an “in-the-money” or “out-of-the-money” option series. As part of this rule change, the Exchange proposes to define these above-referenced terms within ISE Rule 100 to bring greater transparency to its rules with respect to Market Maker quoting. The Exchange proposes to define the term “in-the-money” option at Rule 100(a)(28), which is currently reserved, as the following: For call options, all strike prices at or below the offer in the underlying security on the primary listing market; for put options, all strike prices at or above the bid in the underlying security on the primary listing market. The Exchange proposes to define an “out-of-the-money” option at Rule 100(a)(40), which is currently reserved, to mean the following: For call options, all strike prices above the offer in the underlying security on the primary listing market; for put options, all strike prices below the bid in the underlying security on the primary listing market.
The Exchange has added these definitions into the existing rules in alphabetical order. The Exchange proposes to renumber the rules to account for the addition of these two new definitions and proposes to amend cross-references to Rule 100 within the Rulebook to reflect the proposed new numbering within Rule 100.
The Exchange proposes to amend cross-references to Rule 100 in Rules 713, 720 and Rule 1901 to refer to the current definitions.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Opening Process to conform to current practice is consistent with the Act because while the Exchange believes that relying on the primary market or the NBBO accurately reflect the current trading environment and take into consideration market conditions, the Exchange's current Opening Process is designed to utilize the primary standard during the Opening Process.
The Exchange's proposal to amend its rule to permit intra-day discretion to conform to current practice is consistent with the Act because such discretion is necessary to permit the Exchange the ability to attract liquidity from Market Makers while also maintaining a fair and orderly market. Market Makers accept a certain amount of risk when quoting on the Exchange. The Exchange imposes quoting and other obligations on Market Makers.
The Exchange's proposal to define the terms “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” for purposes of Market Maker quoting obligations in Rules 701 and 803 is consistent with the Act and protects investors and the public interest by bringing greater transparency to the Rulebook. Each of these defined terms would apply for purposes of Market Maker quoting obligations in Rules 701 and 803. The Exchange notes that it specifically proposes to reference the rules related to Market Maker quoting obligations to avoid any confusion with the manner in which “in-the-money” and “out-of-the-money” options series are defined for purposes of other options rules.
The Exchange's proposal to amend cross-references to Rule 100 within Rules 713, 720 and Rule 1901 to refer to the current definitions is consistent with the Act because it will correct references to definitions.
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 codify its current practice of utilizing the primary market in the Opening Process does not unduly burden competition because the current practice maintains a close connection between the primary market and the Opening Process. The primary market reflects the current trading environment. The Exchange notes that the proposal does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition because Market Makers are the only market participants subject to quoting requirements and these participants have valuable information with respect to the underlying instrument under the current process to make informed decisions and take calculated risks in the marketplace when providing liquidity. Market Makers remain responsible for maintaining fair and orderly markets.
The Exchange's proposal to codify the Exchange's ability to permit intra-day discretion similar to the discretion currently permitted in the Opening Process does not impose an undue burden on competition because Market Makers are the only market participants subject to quoting requirements and the proposal specifically considers the need for Market Makers to have information to make informed decisions to make calculated risks in the marketplace so that they may provide liquidity while maintaining fair and orderly markets. The proposed amendments do not create undue burdens on inter-market competition because other options markets have the same intra-day requirements.
The Exchange's proposal to define the terms “in-the-money” or “out-of-the-money” for purposes of Market Maker quoting obligations in Rules 701 and 803 does not unduly burden competition, rather it adds greater transparency to the Rulebook and makes clear the applicability of the definitions to avoid confusion with respect to the remainder of the options rules.
The Exchange's proposal to amend cross-references to Rule 100 in Rules 713, 720 and Rule 1901 to refer to the current definitions does not unduly burden competition because it will correct references to definitions.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 5.1-E(a)(2) to remove the requirement that the Exchange file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) a Form 19b-4(e) for each “new derivative securities product” that will commence trading on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend NYSE Arca Rule 5.1-E(a)(2)(i) to remove the requirement that the Exchange file with the Commission a Form 19b-4(e) for each “new derivative securities product” that will commence trading on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. The Exchange also proposes to renumber the remaining subsections of NYSE Arca Rule 5.1-E(a)(2) to maintain an organized rule structure. The Exchange notes that a substantially identical proposed rule change by NYSE National, Inc. (“NYSE National”) was recently approved by the Commission.
NYSE Arca Rule 5.1-E(a)(2)(i) sets forth the requirement for the Exchange to file with the Commission a Form 19b-4(e) with respect to each “new derivative securities product” that is traded pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. However, the Exchange believes that it should not be necessary to file a Form 19b-4(e) with the Commission if it begins trading a “new derivative securities product” pursuant to unlisted trading privileges, because Rule 19b-4(e)(1) under the Act refers to the “listing and trading” of a “new derivative securities product.” The Exchange believes that the requirements of that rule refer to when an exchange lists and trades a “new derivative securities product”, and not when an exchange seeks only to trade such product pursuant to unlisted trading privileges pursuant to Rule 12f-2 under the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
As noted above, the Commission recently approved a substantially identical proposed rule change by NYSE National.
With respect to the renumbering of current NYSE Arca Rules 5.1-E(a)(2)(ii)-(vi) and the deletion of the duplicative reference to subparagraph (v), the Exchange believes that these changes are consistent with the Act because they will allow the Exchange to maintain a clear and organized rule structure, thus preventing investor confusion.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, removing the requirement to file a Form 19b-4(e) will serve to enhance competition by providing for the efficient addition of new derivative securities products for trading pursuant to unlisted trading privileges on the Exchange. To the extent that a competitor marketplace believes that the proposed rule change places it at a competitive disadvantage, it may file with the Commission a proposed rule change to adopt the same or similar rule.
In addition, the proposal to renumber current NYSE Arca Rules 5.1-E(a)(2)(ii)-(vi) does not impact competition in any respect since it merely maintains a clear and organized rule structure.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; or (iii) become operative prior to 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission notes that the Exchange's proposal does not present
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes amendments to the Exchange's rules to delete references to the term “allied member” and correct an inadvertent error in Rule 2.1220. The proposed rule change is intended to harmonize Exchange rules with the rules of the Exchange's affiliates and the Financial Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) and thus promote consistency within the securities industry. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to delete the term “allied member” from its rules. The “allied member” designation is a regulatory category based on a person's control of a member organization. The Exchange's affiliate New York Stock Exchange LLC (the “NYSE”) no longer has allied members, and FINRA has deleted the term from its Incorporated NYSE Rules.
Additionally, in October 2017, the Exchange filed to amend its rules regarding qualification, registration and continuing education requirements applicable to member organizations, Equity Trading Permit Holders and American Trading Permit (“ATP”) Holders.
Rule 2.1220(a)(7) provides that each ATP Holder engaged in options transactions with the public have at least one Registered Options Principal. The rule further requires that a principal responsible for supervising an ATP Holder's options sales practices with the public, including a person designated pursuant to Rule 11.18(b)(2) register with the Exchange as a Registered Options Principal, unless such principal's options activities are limited solely to those activities that may be supervised by a General Securities Sales Supervisor, in which case, such person may register as a General Securities Sales Supervisor in lieu of registering as a Registered Options Principal. The reference to Rule 11.18(b)(2) is incorrect because there is no Rule 11.18(b)(2) in the Exchange rulebook. The correct reference should be to Rule 920(a).
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will harmonize its rules with NYSE and FINRA rules, thus assisting members and member organizations in complying with those rules and thereby enhancing regulatory efficiency. In addition, the Exchange believes that providing greater harmonization between the Exchange and NYSE and FINRA rules would result in less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for Exchange members and member organizations that are subject to regulatory examination and oversight, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. Additionally, the Exchange believes that deletion of the term “allied member” is consistent with the Act because the Exchange no longer recognizes allied member as a registration category and no Exchange member is currently registered as an allied member. Accordingly, deletion of the term from the Exchange's rules will provide clarity and remove any potential confusion among potential Exchange members and member organizations as to the category of memberships and registration requirements on the Exchange. Finally, the Exchange believes it is consistent with the Act to correct the incorrect cross reference in Rule 2.1220(a)(7) so that the Exchange's rules are accurate, avoiding any potential among ATP Holders.
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 amendments are intended to promote clarity to the Exchange's rules applicable to member organizations and their registered personnel. Further, the proposed changes would apply to all Exchange members and member organizations in the same manner and therefore would not impose any unnecessary intramarket burdens.
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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17f-2(a) (Fingerprinting Requirements for Securities Professionals) requires that securities professionals be fingerprinted. This requirement serves to identify security- risk personnel, to allow an employer to make fully informed employment decisions, and to deter possible wrongdoers from seeking employment in the securities industry. Partners, directors, officers, and employees of exchanges, brokers, dealers, transfer agents, and clearing agencies are included.
The Commission staff estimates that approximately 4,480 respondents will submit an aggregate total 289,780 new fingerprint cards each year or approximately 65 fingerprint cards per year per registrant. The staff estimates that the average number of hours necessary to complete a fingerprint card is one-half hour. Thus, the total estimated annual burden is 144,890 hours for all respondents (289,780 times one-half hour). The average internal labor cost of compliance per hour is approximately $283. Therefore, the total estimated annual internal labor cost of compliance for all respondents is $41,003,870 (144,890 times $283).
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:
Social Security Administration.
Notice announcing addresses for summons and complaints.
Our Office of the General Counsel (OGC) is responsible for processing and handling summonses and complaints in lawsuits involving judicial review of our final decisions on individual claims for benefits under titles II, VIII, and XVI of the Social Security Act (Act). This notice sets out the names and current addresses of those offices and the jurisdictions for which each office has responsibility.
David Mansfield, Office of the General Counsel, Office of Program Law, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6404, (410) 966-2305. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our internet site, Social Security Online, at
You should mail summonses and complaints in cases involving judicial review of our final decisions on individual claims for benefits under titles II, VIII, and XVI of the Act directly to the OGC location responsible for the jurisdiction in which the complaint has been filed. This notice replaces the notice we published on February 23, 2017 (82 FR 11494), and reflects the current jurisdictional
U.S. District Court—Middle District of Alabama: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Atlanta (Region IV).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of Alabama: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Atlanta (Region IV).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of Alabama: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Atlanta (Region IV).
U.S. District Court—Alaska: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Seattle (Region X).
U.S. District Court—Arizona: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, San Francisco (Region IX).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Arkansas: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Arkansas: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Central District of California: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, San Francisco (Region IX).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of California: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, San Francisco (Region IX).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of California: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, San Francisco (Region IX).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of California: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, San Francisco (Region IX).
U.S. District Court—Colorado: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Denver (Region VIII).
U.S. District Court—Connecticut: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, New York (Region II).
U.S. District Court—Delaware: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—District of Columbia: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—Middle District of Florida: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Atlanta (Region IV).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of Florida: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Atlanta (Region IV).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of Florida: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Atlanta (Region IV).
U.S. District Court—Middle District of Georgia: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Atlanta (Region IV).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of Georgia: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Atlanta (Region IV).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of Georgia: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Atlanta (Region IV).
U.S. District Court—Guam: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, San Francisco (Region IX).
U.S. District Court—Hawaii: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, San Francisco (Region IX).
U.S. District Court—Idaho: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Seattle (Region X).
U.S. District Court—Central District of Illinois: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Chicago (Region V).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of Illinois: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Chicago (Region V).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of Illinois: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Chicago (Region V).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of Indiana: Office of Program Law, Baltimore.
U.S. District Court—Southern District of Indiana: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Chicago (Region V).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of Iowa: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of Iowa: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Kansas: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Denver (Region VIII).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Kentucky: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Denver (Region VIII).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Kentucky: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Chicago (Region V).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Louisiana: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Middle District of Louisiana: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Louisiana: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Maine: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Boston (Region I).
U.S. District Court—Maryland: Office of Program Law, Baltimore.
U.S. District Court—Massachusetts: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Boston (Region I).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Michigan: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Boston (Region I).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Michigan: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Kansas City (Region VII).
U.S. District Court—Minnesota: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of Mississippi: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of Mississippi: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Missouri: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Kansas City (Region VII).
U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Kansas City (Region VII).
U.S. District Court—Montana: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Seattle (Region X).
U.S. District Court—Nebraska: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Nevada: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, San Francisco (Region IX).
U.S. District Court—New Hampshire: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Boston (Region I).
U.S. District Court—New Jersey: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—New Mexico: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Denver (Region VIII).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of New York: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, New York (Region II).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of New York: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, New York (Region II).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of New York: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, New York (Region II).
U.S. District Court—Western District of New York: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, New York (Region II).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of North Carolina: Office of Program Law, Baltimore.
U.S. District Court—Middle District of North Carolina: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—Western District of North Carolina: Office of Program Law, Baltimore.
U.S. District Court—North Dakota: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Northern Mariana Islands: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, San Francisco (Region IX).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of Ohio: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Chicago (Region V).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of Ohio: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Chicago (Region V).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Oklahoma: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Denver (Region VIII).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of Oklahoma: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Denver (Region VIII).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Oklahoma: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Denver (Region VIII).
U.S. District Court—Oregon: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Seattle (Region X).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Pennsylvania: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—Middle District of Pennsylvania: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Pennsylvania: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—Puerto Rico: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, New York (Region II).
U.S. District Court—Rhode Island: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Boston (Region I).
U.S. District Court—South Carolina: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—South Dakota: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Tennessee: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Kansas City (Region VII).
U.S. District Court—Middle District of Tennessee: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Kansas City (Region VII).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Tennessee: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Kansas City (Region VII).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Texas: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of Texas: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of Texas: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Texas: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas (Region VI).
U.S. District Court—Utah: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Denver (Region VIII).
U.S. District Court—Vermont: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, New York (Region II).
U.S. District Court—Virgin Islands: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, New York (Region II).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Virginia: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Virginia: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Washington: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Seattle (Region X).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Washington: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Seattle (Region X).
U.S. District Court—Northern District of West Virginia: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—Southern District of West Virginia: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Philadelphia (Region III).
U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Wisconsin: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Chicago (Region V).
U.S. District Court—Western District of Wisconsin: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Chicago (Region V).
U.S. District Court—Wyoming: Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Denver (Region VIII).
Social Security Administration.
Notice.
We are announcing the end of the “single decisionmaker” test, consistent with our notice in the
This notice is applicable on December 12, 2018.
William P. Gibson, Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 966-9039, for information about this notice. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our internet site, Social Security Online, at
Our current rules authorize us to test, individually or in any combination, certain modifications to the disability determination procedures. 20 CFR 404.906 and 416.1406. We conducted several tests under the authority of these rules. In the “single decisionmaker” test, a disability examiner may make the initial disability determination in most cases without obtaining the signature of a medical or psychological consultant. Under section 832 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA),
We ended the single decisionmaker test on October 1, 2018, in the 19 States and the territory of Guam that used this test. There were nine States and the territory of Guam that used single decisionmaker as a stand-alone test. The remaining 10 States used single decisionmaker as part of a separate test that we refer to as the “disability prototype.” 64 FR 47218.
One feature of the prototype test eliminates the reconsideration level of our administrative review process. We are continuing to make decisions in these 10 States by maintaining the elimination of the reconsideration level, but as noted above, as of October 1, 2018, consistent with section 832 of the BBA, we have been making determinations by using medical consultants in those States with the prototype tests.
We will begin phasing out the prototype test in January 2019 in the following five States: New Hampshire; New York; Louisiana; Colorado; and in the part of California
We will eliminate the prototype test in the remaining five States (Pennsylvania; Alabama; Michigan; Missouri; and Alaska) by June 26, 2020, at which time the test will end. With the end of the prototype test, we will return to a national, unified disability process that affords all disability claimants the same appeal rights in all States.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) up to January 11, 2019.
Direct comments to the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You may submit comments by the following methods:
•
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Ms. Colleen Kosar, Office of the Procurement Executive, 2201 C Street NW, Suite 1060, State Annex Number 15, Washington DC 20522-0602; who may be reached on (703) 516-1685 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
This information collection covers pre-award and post-award requirements of the DOSAR. During the pre-award phase, information is collected to determine which proposals offer the best value to the U.S. Government. Post-award actions include monitoring the contractor's performance; issuing modifications to the contract; dealing with unsatisfactory performance; and closing out the contract upon its completion. This program collects information pursuant to the Foreign Service Buildings Act of 1926, as amended (22 U.S.C. 302), the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act (22 U.S.C. 4852), and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (22 U.S.C. 4864).
Information is collected from prospective offerors to evaluate their proposals. The responses provided by the public are part of the offeror's proposals in response to Department solicitations. This information may be submitted electronically (through fax or email), or may require a paper submission, depending upon complexity. After contract award, contractors are required to submit information, on an as-needed basis, and related to the occurrence of specific circumstances.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of request for extension of currently approved information collection.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for renewal of an existing information collection that is summarized below under
Please submit comments by February 11, 2019.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID 2010-0050 by any of the following methods:
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Kelly Morton 602-382-8976,
Beginning in Fiscal Year 2012, States' failure to comply by October 1 of each fiscal year resulted in a withholding penalty of 8 percent from States' apportionments for the fiscal year. Any Funds withheld from a State under 23 U.S.C. 159 shall not be available for apportionment to that State.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before January 11, 2019 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Quintana by emailing
Form 8838-P is used to extend the statute of limitations for U.S. persons who transfers appreciated property to partnerships with foreign partners related to the transferor. The form is filed when the transferor makes a gain recognition agreement. This agreement allows the transferor to defer the payment of tax on the transfer. The IRS uses Form 8838-P so that it may assess tax against the transferor after the expiration of the original statute of limitations.
Generally, no deduction is allowed for any amount paid to, or at the direction of, a government or specified nongovernmental entity for the violation of any law. The general rule does not apply to the following exceptions:
• Amounts that constitute restitution (including remediation of property);
• Amounts paid to come into compliance with the law;
• Amounts paid or incurred as the result of certain court orders in which no government or specified nongovernmental agency is a party; and
• Amounts paid or incurred for taxes due.
To be deductible under an exception, the Taxpayer must establish that an amount required to be paid is for restitution, remediation or to come into compliance with the law, AND the amount must be specifically identified in the settlement agreement or court order as restitution, remediation or to come into compliance with the law.
Any amount paid or incurred as reimbursement to the Government for the costs of any investigation or litigation are not deductible under one of the exceptions (under prior law, these amounts were often considered compensatory and deductible).
The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act also enacted IRC section 6050X, which requires government agencies or specified nongovernmental regulatory entities to file an information return which identifies:
1. The amount required to be paid as a result of the suit or agreement to which IRC section 162(f)(1) applies;
2. Any amount required to be paid as a result of the suit or agreement that constitutes restitution or remediation of property; and
3. Any amount required to be paid as a result of the suit or agreement for the purpose of coming into compliance with any law that was violated or involved in the investigation or inquiry.
This reporting requirement will not be required with respect to amounts paid or incurred under a binding court order or agreement entered into before the date provided in the future proposed regulations, which will be no earlier than January 1, 2019.
Notice 2018-23 provides information for section 6050X and transitional guidance under IRC § 162(f).
44 U.S.C. 3501
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
This final rule establishes the 2019-2020 harvest specifications and management measures for groundfish taken in the U.S. exclusive economic zone off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. This final rule revises the management measures that are intended to keep the total catch of each groundfish stock or stock complex within the harvest specifications. These measures are intended to help prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, achieve optimum yield, and ensure that management measures are based on the best scientific information available.
This final rule is effective January 1, 2019.
This rule is accessible via the Office of the Federal Register website at
Keeley Kent, phone: 206-526-4655, fax: 206-526-6736, or email:
This final rule implements the 2019-2020 harvest specifications and management measures for groundfish stocks taken in the U.S. exclusive economic zone off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. NMFS published the proposed rule to implement the 2019-2020 harvest specifications and management measures on September 19, 2018
The purpose of this final rule is to conserve and manage Pacific Coast groundfish fishery resources to prevent overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks, achieve optimum yield (OY), and ensure that management measures are based on the best scientific information available. This action includes harvest specifications for 2019-2020 consistent with existing or revised default harvest control rules for all stocks, and sets management measures designed to keep catch within the established limits. The harvest specifications are set consistent with the OY harvest management framework described in Chapter 4 of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP).
This final rule contains two types of major provisions. The first are the harvest specifications (overfishing limits (OFLs), acceptable biological catches (ABCs), and annual catch limits (ACLs)), and the second are management measures designed to keep fishing mortality within the ACLs. The Council developed the harvest specifications (OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs) in this rule through a rigorous scientific review and decision making process, which is described in the proposed rule (83 FR 47416, September 19, 2018).
This final rule includes harvest specifications for the two overfished stocks managed under the PCGFMP, yelloweye rockfish and cowcod. For the 2019-2020 biennium, NMFS is implementing changes to the yelloweye rockfish rebuilding plan due to its improved stock rebuilding outlook and changes to the needs of fishing communities. This final rule modifies the harvest control rule for this stock and establishes harvest specifications and management measures consistent with those revisions. The other overfished stock, cowcod, continues to have a positive rebuilding outlook and no changes to its rebuilding plan are included in this rule. Since the 2017-2018 biennium, three stocks have been declared rebuilt: Darkblotched rockfish, bocaccio rockfish, and Pacific ocean perch (POP). The harvest control rules for these stocks revert back to those established prior to the stock being declared overfished.
To keep mortality of the stocks managed under the PCGFMP within the ACLs, the Council also recommended management measures. Generally speaking, management measures are intended to rebuild overfished stocks, prevent catch from exceeding the ACLs, and allow for the harvest of healthy stocks. Management measures include time and area restrictions, gear restrictions, trip or bag limits, size limits, and other management tools. Management measures may vary by fishing sector because different fishing sectors require different types of management to control catch. Most of the management measures the Council recommended for 2019-2020 were slight variations to existing management measures, and do not represent a change from current management practices. Additionally, the Council recommended several new management measures, including: Establishment of salmon bycatch mitigation measures, modifications to depth restrictions in the Western Cowcod Conservation Area (CCA), modification of discard mortality rates for Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) for lingcod and sablefish, removal of the Shorebased IFQ Program daily vessel limits, removal of the automatic authority on at-sea set-asides, continuation of the IFQ adaptive management pass-through, and modification of the retention ratios for incidentally caught lingcod in the salmon troll fishery.
This final rule sets the 2019-2020 harvest specifications and management measures for all of the 128 groundfish stocks that have ACLs or ACL
The most significant changes to harvest specifications from 2018 to 2019 are for stocks that were rebuilt (bocaccio, darkblotched rockfish, and Pacific ocean perch), and for stocks that have a more optimistic stock outlook in a recent stock assessment (lingcod north of 40°10′ N. lat., California scorpionfish south of 34°27′ N. lat., and yelloweye rockfish [an overfished stock]).
This final rule includes changes to the rebuilding plan for yelloweye rockfish. The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) conducted a new stock assessment for yelloweye rockfish in 2017, and the SSC conducted a rebuilding analysis using the updated assessment. This rule modifies the spawning potential ratio (SPR) harvest rate from 76 percent to 65 percent, and modifies the median time to rebuild (T
This change in the rebuilding plan allows an ACL for yelloweye rockfish of 48 mt in 2019 and 49 mt in 2020. Within the ACL, for 2019, the Council recommended an HG of 42.1 mt, of which 3.4 mt is the trawl HG and 38.6 mt is the nontrawl HG. For 2020, the Council recommended an HG of 42.1 mt, of which 3.4 is the trawl HG and 39.5 is the nontrawl HG. Additionally, the Council recommended and NMFS is establishing Annual Catch Targets (ACTs) within the nontrawl allocation HG as part of this final rule. The nontrawl sector includes the limited entry fixed gear and open access fixed gear fisheries as well as the recreational fisheries for Washington, Oregon, and California. The nearshore fisheries occur off of Oregon and California and are subject to both Federal and state HGs as well as other state-specific management measures. The non-nearshore fisheries include the limited entry and Federal open access fixed gear fleets. Tables 3 and 4 outline the harvest specifications for 2019 and 2020 for yelloweye rockfish.
The Analysis demonstrates how the changes to the rebuilding plan selects a target time for rebuilding (T
This section describes biennial fishery HGs and set-asides used to further allocate the ACLs to the various components on the fishery, routine management measures to control fishing, and new management measures adopted for 2019-2020. Routine management measures for the commercial fishery modify fishing behavior during the fishing year to ensure that catch is constrained below the ACL, and include trip and cumulative landing limits, time/area closures, size limits, and gear restrictions. Routine management measures for the recreational fisheries include bag limits, size limits, gear restrictions, fish dressing requirements, and time/area closures. New management measures adopted for the 2019-2020 biennial cycle would work in combination with current management measures to control fishing effort/activity.
The Council recommends two-year trawl and nontrawl allocations during the biennial specifications process for all stocks without long-term allocations or stocks where the long-term allocation is suspended because the stock is declared overfished. For all stocks, except sablefish north of 36° N lat., the Council recommends allocations for the trawl and nontrawl sectors based on the fishery HG. Additionally, some stocks are further portioned out to the various sectors within the trawl and nontrawl groupings. Table 5 shows the allocations of the fishery HG for 2019 for stocks that the Council biennially allocates. Table 6 shows the allocations of the fishery HG for 2020 for stocks that the Council biennially allocates. Additionally, table 7 shows the HGs for select stocks within stock complexes.
Tribes implement management measures for Tribal fisheries both independently as sovereign governments and cooperatively with the management measures in the Federal regulations. The Tribes may adjust their Tribal fishery management measures inseason to stay within the Tribal harvest targets and estimated impacts to overfished stocks. The only change to Tribal harvest targets and management measures for the 2019-2020 biennium is an increase in the petrale sole harvest target from 220 mt to 290 mt.
Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs) are large area closures intended to reduce the catch of a stock or stock complex by restricting fishing activity at specific depths. The boundaries for RCAs are defined by straight lines connecting a series of latitude and longitude coordinates that approximate depth contours. These sets of coordinates, or lines, are not gear or fishery specific, but can be used in combination to define an area. NMFS then implements fishing restrictions for a specific gear and/or fishery within each defined area.
This rule adjusts the coordinates for the 75 fathom (fm) (137 m), 100 fm (183 m), 125 fm (229 m), and 150 fm (274 m) depth contours off of California to more accurately refine the depth contours. These modifications adjust boundaries for RCAs around Santa Cruz Island, Spanish Canyon, Delgada Canyon, Cordell Bank, Point Ano Nuevo, San Miguel Island, Anacapa Island, Usal Canyon, and Noyo Canyon. Currently, the 75, 100, 125, 150 fm depth contours are in use as RCAs for either the trawl sector, limited entry fixed gear sector, or the open access sector. Table 8 shows the RCAs for 2019 and beyond, until otherwise modified.
Table 9 shows the yearly allocations to the Shorebased IFQ Program for 2019 and 2020.
Table 10 shows the trip limits for limited entry trawl vessels north of 40°10′ N lat. Changes to trip limits are considered a routine measure under § 660.60(c) and may be implemented or adjusted, if determined necessary, through inseason action.
The Council and NMFS use either allocations or set asides to manage the non-whiting groundfish catch in the at-sea sectors (the catcher/processor sector and the mothership sector). Set-asides are managed on an annual basis unless there is a risk of catch exceeding a harvest specification (ACL, ACT, or HG) inseason, unforeseen impact on another fishery, or conservation concerns, in which case inseason action may be taken. Table 11 presents the set-asides for the at-sea sector for 2019 and 2020.
Management measures for the limited entry fixed gear (LEFG) and open access (OA) nontrawl fisheries tend to be similar because the majority of participants in both fisheries use hook-and-line gear. Management measures, including area restrictions and trip limits in these nontrawl fisheries, are generally designed to allow harvest of target stocks while keeping catch of
Some limited entry fixed gear permits are endorsed to receive annual sablefish quota, or “tier limits.” Vessels registered with one, two, or up to three of these permits may participate in the primary sablefish fishery. The tier limits are shown in Table 14.
This section describes the recreational fisheries management measures for 2019-2020. The Council primarily recommends depth restrictions and groundfish conservation areas (GCAs) to constrain catch within the recreational harvest guidelines for each stock. Most of the changes to recreational management measures are modifications to existing measures.
Washington, Oregon, and California each proposed, and the Council recommended, different combinations of seasons, bag limits, area closures, and size limits for stocks targeted in recreational fisheries. These measures are designed to limit catch of overfished stocks found in the waters adjacent to each state while allowing target fishing opportunities in their particular recreational fisheries. The following sections describe the recreational management measures this final rule implements for each state.
The state of Washington manages its marine fisheries in four areas: Marine Area 1 extends from the Oregon/Washington border to Leadbetter Point; Marine Area 2 extends from Leadbetter Point to the mouth of the Queets Rivers; Marine Area 3 extends from the Queets River to Cape Alava; and Marine Area 4 extends from Cape Alava to the Sekiu River. Changes from the 2018 fishing season that will be effective for 2019 and beyond include the elimination of the canary rockfish sublimit from all marine areas, and the change to a uniform cabezon sublimit of one fish a day across all marine areas, with no size limit in Marine Area 4. For 2019 and beyond, until otherwise modified, the bag limits for Washington are as follows: 9 groundfish/day, with a sublimit of 7 a day for rockfish, 2 a day for lingcod, and 1 a day for cabezon.
This final rule also aligns the lingcod season in Marine Area 4 with the recreational groundfish season and the lingcod season in Marine Areas 1-3. This adjustment allows for an additional month of fishing in Marine Area 4 compared to 2018. Additionally, this rule allows retention of yellowtail and widow rockfish seaward of 20 fm (37 m) in July and August in Marine Areas 3 and 4.
Oregon recreational fisheries in 2019-2020 will operate under the same season structures and bag limits as 2017-2018. As shown in Table 15, this rule expands all-depth fishing from October through March in 2018 to September through May in 2019 and 2020.
The Council manages recreational fisheries off of California in five separate management areas. The 2019 and 2020 California season structure includes additional time and depth opportunities. Table 16 shows the season structure and depth limits by management area for 2019 and 2020.
Size, bag, and sublimits will remain the same as 2018 for all stocks except for lingcod. To keep within allowable limits, the lingcod bag limit is split into separate limits for north (42° N lat. (California/Oregon border) to 40°10′ N lat. (Northern Management Area)) and south (40°10′ N lat. to the U.S. border with Mexico (Mendocino Management Area, San Francisco Management Area, Central Management Area, and Southern Management Area)). In the north area, the bag limit is 2 lingcod per day; in the south area the bag limit is 1 lingcod per day. Additionally, this rule allows year-round retention of California scorpionfish in the Southern management area.
In December 2017, NMFS completed an Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation on the continued implementation of the PCGFMP and published a Biological Opinion (see
The second action creates a new bycatch reduction area (BRA) (a depth-based management provision) at the 200-fm (366-m) depth contour. The Council and NMFS monitor the salmon bycatch rates of the fleet inseason. If any midwater trawl sector's bycatch rates exceed those considered in the Biological Opinion, the Council and NMFS can take inseason action to implement the BRA for any of the midwater trawl sector. The groundfish midwater trawl sectors subject to this area closure are the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery, the catcher/processor (C/P) sector, and the mothership sector as well as the non-whiting midwater trawl sector, which primarily targets widow rockfish and yellowtail rockfish. If the Council and NMFS implements the 200-fm (366-m) BRA during a fishing season, vessels would be prohibited from using midwater trawl gear to target either whiting or non-whiting groundfish in waters shoreward of the 200-fm (366-m) depth contour, but would still be allowed to fish in waters seaward of 200-fm (366-m). This action only applies to non-tribal midwater trawl vessels. NMFS expects that the Tribes may implement area management measures to mitigate salmon bycatch, if necessary.
The third action closes the Columbia River Salmon Conservation Zone (CRSCZ) and the Klamath River Salmon Conservation Zone (KRSCZ) to all midwater trawling and to bottom trawling, unless vessels are using a selective flatfish trawl (SFFT). Vessels are currently prohibited from fishing with midwater trawl gear in both areas. This final action maintains the prohibition on bottom trawling in these areas without SFFT, which is currently included under a blanket requirement that groundfish trawl vessels use SFFT gear shoreward of the trawl RCA north of 40°10′ N lat. Both the CRSCZ and KRSCZ are located inside this area. NMFS proposed removing this blanket requirement in a rule published on September 7, 2018 (83 FR 45396), and anticipates publishing a final rule removing the requirement in time for the start of the groundfish fishing year. This final rule reestablishes the SFFT requirement inside the CRSCZ and KRSCZ.
The fourth action creates a provision in the regulations to give NMFS automatic authority to close either or both of the whiting and non-whiting sector fisheries if: (1) Either sector catches its guideline limit and the reserve amount; or (2) either sector reaches its guideline limit when the other sector has already taken the reserve amount. The guideline limit for the whiting sector (including tribal and non-tribal vessels in the mothership, catcher/processor (C/P), and Shoreside whiting fleets) is 11,000 Chinook salmon. The guideline limit for the non-whiting sector (including tribal and non-tribal vessels in the Shoreside trawl, fixed gear, and recreational fleets) is 5,500 Chinook salmon. The reserve amount of Chinook is 3,500 fish. This provision includes only select recreational fisheries that are not accounted for in pre-season salmon modeling. The recreational fisheries not accounted for in pre-season salmon modeling are those occurring outside of the open salmon seasons and the Oregon longleader fishery. Any Chinook salmon bycatch in these fisheries must be attributed to the non-whiting threshold, and these fisheries are subject to potential closures. Chinook salmon bycatch from each fishery accrues to the larger sector (
As described in the proposed rule, access to the Reserve for additional Chinook salmon bycatch above the sector's guideline limit is not guaranteed. However, if one sector surpasses its guideline limit, it may be allowed to continue fishing, with additional salmon bycatch accounted for within the Reserve. Under such a scenario, if the sector's bycatch reached the Reserve limit, all fisheries within that sector would be subject to an automatic closure. If one sector is allowed to take the Reserve in a given calendar year, then the other sector, upon reaching its guideline limit, would be subject to an automatic closure rather than potentially being able to access the Reserve. Under the regulations for automatic actions at § 660.60(d), a closure notice would be published in the
This final rule modifies the allowed fishing depths from 20-fm (37-m) to 40-fm (73-m) for the commercial fixed gear fishery and the recreational fishery inside the Western Cowcod Conservation Area (CCA). This rule also adds new waypoints approximating the 30-fm (55-m) and 40-fm (73-m) depth contours around Santa Barbara Island, San Nicolas Island, Tanner Bank, and Cortes Bank because waypoints approximating these contours do not exist at these depths currently. Fisheries are allowed to operate in areas shallower than the depth limit. This final rule increases the area open to fishing within the Western CCA from 40.4 mi
This rule implements lower discard mortality rates (DMRs) for lingcod and sablefish used to debit IFQ accounts in the Shorebased IFQ Program to match the rates the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) endorsed for use in stock assessments and that WCGOP uses for year-end groundfish catch accounting. By providing IFQ participants with discard survival credits for lingcod and sablefish, this rule will better meet some of the objectives of the IFQ program, such as increased attainments of and increased
This rule is expected to result in a minimal increase (about 1 percent) in total coastwide IFQ mortality of sablefish (see Section C.5 of Appendix C of the Analysis). The resulting “savings” of trawl sablefish could possibly increase landings of co-occurring, underattained stocks such as Dover sole, shortspine thornyheads, and longspine thornyheads (see Section C.5 of Appendix C of the Analysis).
Under the Shorebased IFQ Program, vessel limits in vessel accounts restrict the amount of quota pounds (QPs)—the annual currency of quota shares—that any vessel can catch or hold. NMFS calculates annual QP vessel limits, which are a set percentage of the total IFQ sector allocation based on formulas set through Amendment 20 to the PCGFMP. The annual vessel QP limit restricts the amount of used and unused QP in a vessel account during a fishing year.
NMFS also sets daily vessel limits for overfished stocks, which cap the amount of overfished stock QPs any vessel account can have available in their account on a given day. The Council and NMFS established daily vessel limits to prevent a person from acquiring additional QP from others before those QP are needed in order to promote trading of QP of overfished species. As explained in the proposed rule (83 FR 47416, September 19, 2018), the daily vessel limit has been ineffective for keeping catch available for trading, so this rule eliminates the daily limits for all stocks (bocaccio (south), darkblotched rockfish, and Pacific ocean perch, cowcod (south), yelloweye rockfish, and Pacific halibut). Because the daily limits for the remaining overfished stocks and for Pacific halibut have not been constraining, NMFS expects that eliminating this provision will not have a measurable effect on the fishery.
This rule removes NMFS's automatic authority to close either at-sea sector (C/P and MS sectors) if they exceed their set-aside value for these stocks so that they are managed like all other at-sea set-asides in the PCGFMP. The Analysis demonstrates that the expected risk of the at-sea sectors exceeding their set-aside values for darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean perch is low due to low overall attainment in the trawl sector in recent years.
This rule clarifies that NMFS will continue to pass through the QP reserved for the adaptive management program until the Council recommends an alternative use of adaptive management program QP. This is an administrative measure that will not affect fishing opportunity and related catch.
This rule modifies the incidental retention ratio for landing lingcod based on the number of Chinook landed in the ocean salmon troll fishery in the area north of 40° 10′ N latitude from a 1 to 15 fish ratio to a 1 to 5 fish ratio. Vessels are also allowed to retain an additional lingcod per trip, up to a trip limit of 10 lingcod. The purpose of the ratio is to allow salmon trollers to retain incidentally caught lingcod, but to discourage lingcod targeting within the nontrawl RCA. Vessels participating in the ocean salmon troll fishery must be equipped with a vessel monitoring system (VMS) to retain incidentally caught groundfish. The Council can adjust the ratio of lingcod retention per Chinook landed through inseason adjustments, if necessary. NMFS does not expect this rule will create an incentive for salmon trollers to target lingcod because these vessels are still restricted to an overall limit of 10 lingcod per trip.
NMFS also implements four minor changes to the regulatory text through this final rule to clarify regulatory intent. NMFS will add big skate to the LEFG and OA fixed gear fisheries trip limit tables, Table 2 North and Table 2 South to part 660, subpart E, and Table 3 North and Table 3 South to part 660, subpart F. Big skate is not currently listed in the trip limit table for either the LEFG or OA fisheries, and as such is unlimited.
This rule also removes an obsolete reference to halibut weight provisions off of California at § 660.333(c)(3). California Department of Fish and Wildlife removed this provision from state regulations in 2004.
This rule clarifies the application of Amendment 21-3 set-aside management of darkblotched rockfish and Pacific ocean perch for the at-sea sector for both years of the biennium in Tables 1b, 2b, 1d, and 2d to part 660, subpart C.
Finally, this action removes the WCGOP priority sampling requirement for canary rockfish and bocaccio, formerly overfished stocks that were declared rebuilt, as requested by the Council at its March 2017 meeting. As a result of this change, observers are no longer required to count and weigh these fish on a docked vessel prior to offloading.
NMFS received eight unique comment letters during the public comment period on the proposed rule. Three state agencies submitted comments, including the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). The letters from the state agencies included requests for clarifications on information included in the preamble to the proposed rule and noted several small errors or inconsistencies in the proposed regulations. NMFS has addressed those in separate sections, “Corrections to the Preamble of the Proposed Rule” and “Changes from the Proposed Rule.” The other five comment letters, one of which was a duplicate, were from private citizens and contained substantive comments. NMFS addresses these comments below.
All Chinook salmon catch, including “lightning strike” tows, counts towards the 20,000 Chinook bycatch limit. This rule gives NMFS the automatic authority to close the whiting or non-whiting sectors for the remainder of the fishing year if either exceed their salmon bycatch guideline limit and/or the reserve. Closing either sector for the duration of the fishing year is a severe penalty that, as described in the preamble to the proposed rule, would result in significant economic harm to fishing vessels and fishing communities (83 FR 47416, September 19, 2018). Additionally, the reserve is not guaranteed to be available for either sector. Under the terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion, if either sector's bycatch exceeds their guideline limit, and any portion of the reserve is caught in more than three out of every five years, NMFS is required to reinitiate an ESA consultation to reevaluate the impacts of the groundfish fishery on ESA-listed salmon species. The automatic closure requirement and the potential for reinitiation mean that, in effect, the groundfish fisheries are held to lower limits than the 20,000 Chinook salmon total fishery limit.
This rule also includes a new area management tool, the 200-fm (366 m) BRA, for NMFS and the Council to use to address high bycatch in the midwater trawl fleet. The midwater trawl fleet has historically taken the greatest number of Chinook as bycatch; therefore, this new tool will be beneficial in addressing the bycatch issue where it is most prominent.
Finally, term and condition 2.b. of the December 2017 Biological Opinion also recommend that the Council develop additional management measures it deems are necessary for timely inseason management to keep the sectors from exceeding their salmon bycatch guidelines. The Council is scheduled to discuss and potentially develop additional inseason bycatch measures in a separate action outside of this rulemaking. The first discussion of these measures will take place at the November 2018 Council meeting. Additional inseason management tools could provide more flexibility for NMFS and the Council to further reduce salmon bycatch in the groundfish fisheries.
NMFS received comment letters from CDFW, WDFW, and ODFW noting inaccuracies in information presented in the preamble to the proposed rule. NMFS offers the following corrections in this final rule. These clarifications and corrections to the information described in the preamble to the proposed rule do not change the substance or intent of the final rule.
In the proposed rule preamble under Section I (A): Specification and
The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) conducted full stock assessments in 2017 for the following stocks: Blue/deacon rockfish (CA, OR), California scorpionfish, lingcod [north and south], Pacific ocean perch, yellowtail rockfish north of 40°10′ N lat., yelloweye rockfish. Additionally, the NWFSC conducted assessment updates, which incorporate new data into existing models, for four stocks (arrowtooth flounder, blackgill rockfish south of 40°10′ N lat., bocaccio S of 43° N lat., darkblotched rockfish). The NWFSC did not update assessments for the remaining stocks, so harvest specifications for these stocks are based on assessments from previous years. The stock assessment reports are available on the Council website (
Public comments from CDFW and WDFW pointed out that the description in Table 1 of the preamble to the proposed rule of the proposed change for the harvest control rule for lingcod north of 40°10\′ N latitude erroneously stated that in addition to changing the P* value for the California portion of the stock (from 0.40 to 0.45), that the assumptions of ACL attainment were also modified. However, both the harvest control rule in place prior to this final rule and the harvest control rule implemented through this final rule assumed a total catch in 2017 and 2018 of 1,000 mt, and then used an average 2015-2017 exploitation rate to distribute catches among the fisheries.
In Section II: Harvest Specifications, B. Proposed ABCs for 2019 and 2020, WDFW pointed out that NMFS failed to include lingcod south of 40°10' N latitude in the list of category two and three stocks for which the Council selected a P* other than 0.4. As was noted in Table 1 of the preamble in the proposed rule, the Council selected a P* of 0.45 for lingcod south of 40°10′ N latitude.
In Section III: Management Measures, B. Stock Complex Restructuring, WDFW noted in their comment letter that NMFS's description of the proposed stock complex change to create a new stock complex with Washington cabezon and Washington kelp greenling did not accurately capture the most recent make-up of that stock complex. The references to ratfish, skates, codling, and grenadier as being part of the Other Fish complex were inaccurate; those stocks were removed from the complex through Amendment 24 to the FMP (80 FR 12567; March 10, 2015). Prior to this final rule, the following stocks were managed under the Other Fish complex: Kelp greenling (
In Section B: Stock Complex Composition Restructuring, in response to CDFW and ODFW comments, NMFS clarifies that the new Oregon black/blue/deacon rockfish complex only includes Oregon blue/deacon rockfish north of 42° N latitude, which is the border between Oregon and California, rather than north of 40°10′ N latitude. The species managed in the minor nearshore rockfish complex off Washington and California are not revised with this rule. This clarification is also made in regulations, and is further described in Changes from the Proposed Rule.
CDFW also noted that in Section C, Table 9 of the preamble to the proposed rule incorrectly transposed the labels for 2019 and 2020. The cowcod allocation is 36 percent of the fishery HG for the trawl fishery, or 2.2 mt, and is 64 percent of the fishery HG for the non-trawl fishery is, or 3.8 mt. The allocations in Tables 1b and 1b to subpart C listed the cowcod allocations correctly, and did not result in a change from the proposed rule.
CDFW requested clarifications regarding commercial non-trawl lingcod trip limit changes described in the preamble of the proposed rule. The text and Table 16 in the preamble mistakenly referenced lingcod trip limit reductions for limited entry fixed gear south of 40°10′ N lat. but changes are only for open access fisheries in this area. The limited entry fixed gear trip limits for lingcod south of 40°10′ N lat. shown in Table 16 were incorrectly reduced, but are correct (and unchanged from current limits) in Table 2 (South) to subpart E regulations.
WDFW requested a clarification on information in the preamble to the proposed rule referenced statements in Section C: Biennial Fishery Allocations: Minor Nearshore Rockfish. The paragraph mentions that under state management, vessels must record their landings on their state landing receipts according to the sorting requirements; which include sorting component stocks within the Minor Nearshore Rockfish complex by stock. However, Washington does not have a commercial nearshore fishery. Therefore, the statement should note that only states for which there are commercial nearshore fisheries require that catch of component stocks within the Minor Nearshore Rockfish complex be sorted by stock.
In Section H: Recreational Fisheries, in the Washington section, the proposed rule erroneously states that Marine Area 4 extends to the Sekiu River. However, for federally-managed groundfish stocks, Marine Area 4 only includes coastal waters west of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line at Cape Flattery. NMFS notes the correction. This means that all of the changes to the lingcod season structure that align harvests in Marine Area 4 with Marine Areas 1-3 apply to only the coastal waters west of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line at Cape Flattery, in addition to the correctly described waters in Marine Areas 1-3.
Additionally, in Section H: Recreational Fisheries, in the Washington section, the proposed rule explains that retention of yellowtail and widow rockfish would be allowed in Marine Areas 3 and 4 seaward of 20 fms in July and August. In a comment letter, WDFW requests a clarification to explain that yellowtail and widow rockfish retention will be allowed in these areas, seaward of 20 fms, on days open to recreational salmon fishing during the months of July and August.
Under Section H: Recreational Fisheries, in the California section, CDFW noted the discrepancy between preamble text stating that the proposed rule would allow year-round retention
Under Section I: Salmon Bycatch Mitigation Measures of the proposed rule preamble, NMFS incorrectly stated that the Council estimated coho catch in the whiting and non-whiting groundfish fisheries for purposes of the Biological Opinion. While the Council provided an estimate of Chinook bycatch for the proposed action, it did not similarly discuss coho bycatch. In the Biological Opinion, NMFS estimated the bycatch of coho in the whiting and non-whiting sectors based on historical mortalities and assumptions about coho bycatch in newer fisheries, such as the Oregon long-leader fishery. This is because a biological opinion must analyze the proposed action's expected take of listed species. Additionally, for the purposes of clarity requested by CDFW, NMFS notes that under this final rule, tribal bycatch of Chinook and coho in the whiting fishery accrues to the whiting sector bycatch guideline limits for each species and similarly, tribal bycatch of Chinook and coho in the non-whiting fishery accrues to the non-whiting sector's bycatch guideline limits for each species.
The comment letter from WDFW also points out an incorrect statement under Section L: Removal of IFQ Daily Vessel Limits. In this section, NMFS stated that NMFS also sets daily vessel limits for overfished stocks. That statement should have read, NMFS also sets daily vessel limits for overfished stocks and for Pacific halibut. Pacific halibut is not an overfished stock, but is managed as bycatch in the Shorebased IFQ fisheries. NMFS correctly states later in the section that the proposed rule would remove the daily vessel limit for Pacific halibut.
In Section M: Removal of Automatic Authority for Darkblotched Rockfish and Pacific Ocean Perch Set-Asides for At-Sea Sector, WDFW pointed out inconsistencies in the description of how the current set-aside structure was created. The final rule for the 2017-2018 harvest specifications and management measures (82 FR 9634, February 7, 2017) created the buffer originally, and then under Amendment 21-3 to the PCGFMP (83 FR 757, January 8, 2018), the portion of the harvest of each of these stocks for the at-sea sector was changed from an allocation to a set-aside. This final rule removes NMFS's automatic authority to shut down the sector if the set-aside is exceeded.
Under the description of the lingcod retention ratio in the salmon troll fishery in Section O of the proposed rule, NMFS further clarifies in response to WDFW's comment letter that under the revised lingcod retention ratio, salmon troll vessels are still subject to the monthly open access lingcod trip limits. This information is noted in the current regulations in Table 3 (North) to part 660, subpart F, however was not explicitly stated in the preamble to the proposed rule. Under this final rule, any salmon troll vessels seeking to retain incidentally-caught lingcod are subject to the revised ratio (1 lingcod per 5 Chinook per trip, plus 1 lingcod per trip), the vessel trip limit (10 lingcod), and then the current monthly lingcod trip limit noted in the table.
As a result of comments received on the proposed rule, NMFS is making the following changes to the proposed rule. During the process of reviewing the information in the proposed rule, the Council determined that there was a calculation error for the ABC, ACL, HG and subsequent trawl and non-trawl allocations for yellowtail rockfish N of 40°10′ N lat. This error in calculation was the result of the application of an incorrect sigma (σ) value to the OFL for this stock, based on the stock category. Under the Council's procedure for developing harvest specifications, the SSC recommends a σ value. The σ value is based on the scientific uncertainty in the biomass estimates generated from stock assessments. The SSC determined that the Yellowtail rockfish N of 40°10′ N lat. is a category 1 stock and should have the standard sigma value of 0.36 applied. However, in calculating the ABC and ACL for yellowtail rockfish N of 40°10′ N lat, the Council inadvertently used a sigma value of 0.72, which is the sigma value for category 2 stocks. The proposed rule incorrectly stated that the ABC and ACL for yellowtail rockfish N of 40°10′ N lat. for 2019 was 5,997 mt and the HG was 4,952 mt. For 2020, the proposed rule stated the ABC and ACL was 5,716 mt and the HG was 4,671 mt. After making the correction, the resulting ABC and ACL for yellowtail rockfish N of 40°10′ N lat. for 2019 is 6,279 mt, with an HG of 5,234 mt, and for 2020 an ABC and ACL of 5,986 mt, with an HG of 4,941 mt. This results in a 2019 trawl allocation of 4,605.8 mt and 628.1 mt for non-trawl, and an allocation of 4,305.8 mt to the Shorebased IFQ Program. For 2020, the yellowtail rockfish N of 40°10′ N lat. trawl allocation is 4,348.0 mt and the non-trawl allocation is 592.9 mt. The 2020 Shorebased IFQ allocation is 4,048.0 mt. All other allocations of yellowtail rockfish N of 40°10′ N lat. are unchanged from those announced in the proposed rule.
In 50 CFR 660.360(c)(1)(i)(D)(
In response to a comment from ODFW, at 50 CFR 660.11, in the definition of “groundfish”, this final rule makes clarifications to reflect the new stock complex compositions off Oregon for black/blue/deacon rockfishes. This final rule clarifies that the minor nearshore rockfish complex stock composition off Washington and California are unchanged.
For the Minor Slope Rockfish complex south of 40°10′ N latitude, the 2019 Shorebased trawl allocation was listed incorrectly in 50 CFR 660.140(d)(1)(ii)(D) as 1,049.1 mt. The 2019 Shorebased Trawl allocation is 456.0 mt. This value was listed correctly as the trawl allocation in Table 1b to part 660, subpart C. Because there is no allocation of this species complex to the at-sea sector, the entire trawl allocation is passed through as the Shorebased trawl allocation. This final rule corrects that inconsistency.
In response to CDFW's comments regarding the California recreational fishery, this final rule revises season date changes for the recreational fishery. The updated season dates for the recreational RCA (50 CFR 660.360(c)(3)(i)(A)) and California scorpionfish (§ 660.360(c)(3)(v)(A)) were correct in the proposed rule. However, updated season dates for the other recreational groundfish species groups were mistakenly omitted. This final rule corrects that inconsistency by revising the season dates for the rockfish, cabezon and greenling (RCG) complex (§ 660.360(C)(3)(ii)(A)), lingcod (§ 660.360(C)(3)(iii)(A)), and California scorpionfish (§ 660.360(C)(3)(v)(A)).
Finally, at its November 2018 meeting, the Council recommended changes to the trip limits for the open access fisheries north of 36° N latitude for sablefish, and for the fisheries north and south of 40°10′ N latitude for canary rockfish. Additionally, the Council
Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
NMFS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), so that this final rule may become effective on January 1, 2019. This action establishes the final specifications (
Because this final rule increases the catch limits for several species for 2019, leaving 2018 harvest specifications in place could unnecessarily delay fishing opportunities until later in the year, potentially reducing the total catch for these species in 2019. Thus, a delay in effectiveness could ultimately cause economic harm to the fishing industry and associated fishing communities or result in harvest levels inconsistent with the best available scientific information. For example, due to the improved status of yelloweye rockfish, the Council recommended significant changes in catch limits and management measures for a number of sector of the fishery, including higher trip limits for the limited entry fleets, reductions in depth limit restrictions for the recreational fisheries, and more quota pounds for the Shorebased IFQ fishery. This measure provides for a year-round opportunity to access underutilized target stocks. In effect, because this final rule implements higher catch limits for many species than are in effect for 2018, this final rule relieves a restriction on the fishing industry.
This final rule is not unexpected or controversial for the public. The groundfish harvest specifications are published biennially and are intended to be effective on January 1 of odd numbered years. Additionally, the subject of this final rule has been developed over a series of six public meetings of the Pacific Fishery Management Council from June 2017 to June 2018. These meetings are publicly noticed and the public is provided opportunity to comment on actions through this venue as well as through rulemaking.
Because of the potential harm to fishing communities that could be caused by delaying the effectiveness of this final rule and because of the previous notification to the regulated public of these changes through the Council process, NMFS finds there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.
NMFS prepared an integrated analysis for this action, which addresses the statutory requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, Presidential Executive Order 12866, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The NMFS WCR Regional Administrator concluded in a “Finding of No Significant Impact” that there will be no significant impact on the human environment as a result of this rule. A copy of the integrated analysis is available from NMFS (see
NMFS prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) under section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA). A summary of any significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS's responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action are addressed below. NMFS also prepared a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for this action. A copy of the RIR and FRFA are available from NMFS (see
As applicable, section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking and when an agency promulgates a final rule under section 553 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code. The following paragraphs constitute the FRFA for this action.
This FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a summary of any significant issues raised by the public comments, NMFS's responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. Analytical requirements for the FRFA are described in the RFA, section 604(a)(1) through (6). FRFAs contain:
1. A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;
2. A statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments;
3. The response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments;
4. A description and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply, or an explanation of why no such estimate is available;
5. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and
6. A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.
The “universe” of entities to be considered in a FRFA generally includes only those small entities that can reasonably be expected to be directly regulated by the action. If the effects of the rule fall primarily on a distinct segment of the industry, or portion thereof (
In preparing a FRFA, an agency may provide either a quantifiable or
The purpose of this final rule is to prevent overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks, to ensure conservation, to facilitate long-term protection of essential fish habitat (EFH), and to realize the full potential of the nation's fishery resources (Magnuson-Stevens Act section 2(a)(6)). This final rule is needed to respond to new scientific information and information about the needs of fishing communities, to provide additional tools to ensure that annual catch limits (ACLs) and other Federal harvest guidelines (HGs) are not exceeded, and to afford additional fishing opportunities where warranted.
NMFS published the proposed rule for the 2019-2020 harvest specifications and management measures on September 19, 2018 (83 FR 47416). An IRFA was prepared and summarized in the Classification section of the preamble to the proposed rule. The comment period on the proposed rule ended on October 19, 2018. NMFS received eight comment letters on the proposed rule. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA did not file any comments on the IRFA or the proposed rule. One comment was received pertaining to the IRFA, from CDFW, providing results of an analysis that changes the estimated number of vessels that may be impacted by a change in open access lingcod trip limits for vessels fishing in the salmon troll fishery between 42° N lat. and 40°10′ N lat. This information was updated for the FRFA below.
The RFA (5 U.S.C. 601
A small
For
For the purposes of this rulemaking, a
This final rule regulates businesses that participate in the groundfish fishery. This rule directly affects commercial vessels in the groundfish fisheries, trawl quota share (QS) holders and Pacific whiting catch history endorsed permit holders (which include shorebased whiting processors), tribal vessels, and charterboat vessels. Additionally, a provision of this final rule regulates commercial vessels in the salmon troll fleet.
To determine the number of small entities potentially affected by this rule, NMFS reviewed analyses of fish ticket data and limited entry permit data, information on charterboat, tribal, and open access fleets, available cost-earnings data developed by NWFSC, and responses associated with the permitting process for the Trawl Rationalization Program where applicants were asked if they considered themselves a small business based on SBA definitions. This rule primarily regulates businesses that harvest groundfish.
There were an estimated 287 active Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessels (charter) engaged in groundfish fishing in California in 2017. In 2017, an estimated 49 charter boats targeted groundfish in Oregon. There is no Oregon license or tracking of “six pack” or party fishing vessel businesses that will also be impacted, however in one week in August 2017, there were 285 boat trips targeting recreational groundfish in Oregon, which would include the 49 charter vessels, and is an upper bound of such entities likely to be impacted in Oregon. Similarly in Washington, the number of party/charter vessels likely to be impacted by the rule was 182 in 2017. All 705 of these vessels are likely to be impacted by changes in recreational catch guidelines for groundfish in their respective states.
Entities that are not registered as trusts, estates, governments, or non-profits are assumed to earn the majority of their revenue from commercial fishing. The definition above is used for 124 QS permit owners, who collectively received 76.5 percent of the QP issued in 2018. Limited entry groundfish vessels are required to self-report size across all affiliated entities; of the business who earn the majority of their revenue from commercial fishing, one self-reported as large. This entity owns four groundfish permits and one QS permit. 264 entities owning 376 permits self-reported as small. The average small entity owns 1.4 permits, with 30 small entities owning between 3-6 permits each. Open access groundfish vessel owners are assumed to earn the majority of their revenue from fishing and would thus fall into the SBA definition of small entities. 186 non-limited entry vessels harvested at least $10,000 worth of groundfish in 2017; these are likely to be impacted by this final rule. This number is likely an upper bound as some entities may own more than one vessel; however, these generally small operations are assumed to be independent entities; with the top three vessels having coastwide (including non-groundfish) revenues averaging $585,000. Median revenues were $37,000 per vessel.
In addition to benefits from increasing ACLs in the harvest specifications, several of the new management measures contained in the rule are likely to benefit vessels. Clarifications such as the stock complex restructuring and updates to Rockfish Conservation Area coordinates may streamline management burden for vessels. IFQ vessels are expected to benefit from the removal of daily vessel quota pounds, which did not appear to constrain operations but did account for some level of administrative burden for quota pound account managers. With the elimination of these limits, managers will have greater flexibility in moving and holding quota pounds for the remaining overfished species and halibut IBQ. These vessels and vessel account operators may also benefit somewhat from changes to the discard mortality rates in the IFQ program. Some of the non-trawl fixed gear vessels are expected to benefit by the modifications to the commercial depths inside the Western Cowcod Conservation area in California.
This final rule primarily impacts entities in the groundfish fishery. However, one new management measure included the rule will likely benefit vessels primarily involved in the salmon troll fishery, through a modification in the incidental lingcod retention ratio in that fishery. This modification reflects the increased rate of lingcod encounters during declining Chinook salmon harvest seasons. This modification allows salmon trollers to retain and sell a larger number of lingcod caught incidentally when targeting salmon. The level of activity varies substantially, with trips ranging from 500 to over 5,500 in a year. The subsector of the fleet expected to benefit from the final rule is much smaller, as historically a small proportion has elected to land lingcod within the previously allowed limits. In order to land lingcod, the vessel would have to install VMS, which likely deters salmon trollers, among other factors. Thus, this provision of the final rule may impact between 14 to 133 vessels in California of the approximately 207 operating there if they choose to retain lingcod. These estimates are updated from the IRFA based on public comment from CDFW and the results of their analysis. In Oregon, between 7 and 85 trollers have landed lingcod, and in Washington between 10 and 17. This final rule is expected to have a small benefit to these 235 vessels, which landed lingcod on a median of 1-2 trips, with vessels in the 90th percentile landing lingcod on 5 trips annually. This small positive benefit is not expected to be a substantial impact, nor are the entities likely to be impacted a substantial number of the overall salmon troll fishery.
As the harvest specifications process determines the amount of QP available in the catch share (limited entry trawl permit Individual Fishing Quota) sector, this final rule will impact QS. Twenty-two non-whiting QS permit owners are estimated, based on holdings of first receiver permit affiliation in the non-public West Coast Region permits database, to be primarily engaged in seafood “product preparation and packaging.” According to the size standard defined above, three of the entities that own three of these permits are considered small. These small processing entities were issued 1.7 percent of the non-whiting QP issued in 2018. Some of these small processing entities also own groundfish permits, required on both catcher vessels and catcher processors, which would be regulated by this final rule; three small entities primarily engaged in seafood processing own two groundfish permits. Thirty groundfish vessel permits are owned by seven entities who are considered large both estimated independently using the definition above, as well as through ownership affiliation to self-reported size on groundfish permit and first receiver site license permits (self-reported using the definition above). Six of these seven large processing entities were issued 10.2 percent of the non-whiting QP issued in 2018 across sixteen QS permits.
According to the public IFQ Account database as of June 19, 2018, the City of Monterey owns QS of ten stocks. The U.S. Census estimates the population to be 28,454 as of July 1, 2017, so it would be considered a small governmental jurisdiction by the RFA standard above. The City of Monterey received 0.5 percent of the QP issued for 2018 according to the public IFQ Account database.
According to the public IFQ Account database, six not-for-profit organizations own QS in the catch share program and would thus be impacted by the trawl sector allocation under this final rule. Five of these would be considered small by the definition above (2016 annual receipts as reported on IRS form 990 of $120-500 thousand dollars), and one large (self-reported fiscal year 2017 receipts of $1.1 billion). Collectively, the five small not-for-profit organizations received 7.2 percent of the non-whiting
Eleven personal or family trusts/estates owned QS permits and would thus potentially be impacted by the trawl sector allocation under this final rule. All of these are assumed to be smaller than the size standard above. Collectively, these eight small entities received 4.2 percent of the non-whiting QP issued for 2018.
This rule does not modify existing recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
In the event of a fishery closure under the Biological Opinion provisions included in this rule, the loss of revenue in groundfish fisheries would likely have a substantial negative impact on a significant number of small entities, an equal impact to all large entities in the fishery. However, such a closure is not anticipated by either analysts or industry, given historic catch levels and cooperative management structures with extensive inseason monitoring. Because these provisions are non-discretionary under the ESA, there are no significant alternatives to the rule that would minimize adverse economic impacts on small entities.
The Council did consider alternatives to the rule which would have had a lower level of benefits to small entities, the Council did not consider alternatives that would have had greater benefits to small entities as these would not have met several primary objectives of the rule (prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, ensure conservation).
Under No Action, the default harvest specifications and associated routine management measures would be implemented using best scientific information available to establish default harvest control rules for all groundfish stocks. The Council
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide (the guide) was prepared. Copies of this final rule are available from the West Coast Regional Office (see
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this rule was developed after meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials from the area covered by the PCGFMP. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council must be a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. In addition, regulations implementing the PCGFMP establish a procedure by which the tribes with treaty fishing rights in the area covered by the PCGFMP request new allocations or regulations specific to the tribes, in writing, before the first of the two meetings at which the Council considers groundfish management measures. The regulations at 50 CFR 660.324(d) further state, “the Secretary will develop tribal allocations and regulations under this paragraph in consultation with the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with tribal consensus.” The tribal management measures in this rule have been developed following these procedures. The tribal representative on the Council made a motion to adopt the non-whiting tribal management measures, which was passed by the Council. Those management measures, which were developed and proposed by the tribes, are included in this final rule.
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(1)
(6) Roundfish: Cabezon,
(i) Between 46°16′ N lat. and the U.S. Canada border (Washington): Cabezon,
(ii) Between 46°16′ N lat. and 42° N lat. (Oregon): Cabezon,
(7) * * *
(i) Nearshore rockfish includes black rockfish,
(A) North of 46°16′ N lat. (Washington) and between 42°00′ N lat. and 40°10′ N lat. (northern California): Black and yellow rockfish,
(B) Between 46°16′ N lat. and 42° N lat. (Oregon): Black and yellow rockfish,
(C) Between 46°16′ N lat. and 42° N lat. (Oregon): Black rockfish,
(9) “Other Fish”: kelp greenling (
The revision reads as follows:
(b)
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The Tribal allocation is 561 mt in 2019 and 572 mt in 2020 per year. This allocation is, for each year, 10 percent of the Monterey through Vancouver area (North of 36° N lat.) ACL. The Tribal allocation is reduced by 1.5 percent for estimated discard mortality.
(6)
(h)
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A)
(B)
The revision and addition read as follows:
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) Close one or both of the whiting or non-whiting sectors of the groundfish fishery upon that sector having exceeded its annual Chinook salmon bycatch guideline and the reserve.
The whiting sector includes the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery, MS, and C/P sectors. The non-whiting sector includes the midwater trawl, bottom trawl, and fixed gear fisheries under the Shorebased IFQ Program, limited entry fixed gear fisheries, open access fisheries, and recreational fisheries subject to this provision as set out in § 660.360(d).
(A) The whiting sector Chinook salmon bycatch guideline is 11,000 fish.
(B) The non-whiting sector Chinook salmon bycatch guideline is 5,500 fish.
(C) The reserve is 3,500 fish.
(vi) Close the whiting or non-whiting sector of the groundfish fishery upon that sector having exceeded its annual Chinook salmon bycatch guideline if the other sector has already been closed after exceeding its Chinook salmon bycatch guideline and the reserve. The whiting sector includes the Pacific whiting IFQ fishery, MS, and C/P sectors. The non-whiting sector includes the midwater trawl, bottom trawl, and fixed gear fisheries under the Shorebased IFQ Program, limited entry fixed gear fisheries, open access fisheries, and recreational fisheries subject to this provision as set out in § 660.360(d).
The additions read as follows:
(k) The 30 fm (55 m) depth contour around Santa Barbara Island off the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
(1) 33°30.38′ N lat., 119°03.15′ W long.;
(2) 33°29.64′ N lat., 119°00.58′ W long.;
(3) 33°27.24′ N lat., 119°01.73′ W long.;
(4) 33°27.76′ N lat., 119°03.48′ W long.;
(5) 33°29.50′ N lat., 119°04.20′ W long.; and
(6) 33°30.38′ N lat., 119°03.15′ W long.
(l) The 30 fm (55 m) depth contour around San Nicholas Island off the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
(1) 33°18.39′ N lat., 119°38.87′ W long.;
(2) 33°18.63′ N lat., 119°27.52′ W long.;
(3) 33°15.24′ N lat., 119°20.10′ W long.;
(4) 33°13.27′ N lat., 119°20.10′ W long.;
(5) 33°12.16′ N lat., 119°26.82′ W long.;
(6) 33°13.20′ N lat., 119°31.87′ W. long.;
(7) 33°15.70′ N lat., 119°38.87′ W long.;
(8) 33°17.52′ N lat., 119°40.15′ W long.; and
(9) 33°18.39′ N lat., 119°38.87′ W long.
(m) The 30 fm (55 m) depth contour around Tanner Bank off the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
(1) 32°43.02′ N lat., 119°08.52′ W long.;
(2) 32°41.81′ N lat., 119°06.20′ W long.;
(3) 32°40.67′ N lat., 119°06.82′ W long.;
(4) 32°41.62′ N lat., 119°09.46′ W long.; and
(5) 32°43.02′ N lat., 119°08.52′ W long.
(n) The 30 fm (55 m) depth contour around Cortes Bank off the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
(1) 32°29.73′ N lat., 119°12.95′ W long.;
(2) 32°28.17′ N lat., 119°07.04′ W long.;
(3) 32°26.27′ N lat., 119°04.14′ W long.;
(4) 32°25.22′ N lat., 119°04.77′ W long.;
(5) 32°28.60′ N lat., 119°14.15′ W long.; and
(6) 32°29.73′ N lat., 119°12.95′ W long.
(s) The 40 fm (73 m) depth contour around Santa Barbara Island off the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
(1) 33°30.87′ N lat., 119°02.43′ W long.;
(2) 33°29.87′ N lat., 119°00.34′ W long.;
(3) 33°27.08′ N lat., 119°01.65′ W long.;
(4) 33°27.64′ N lat., 119°03.45′ W long.;
(5) 33°29.12′ N lat., 119°04.55′ W long.;
(6) 33°29.66′ N lat., 119°05.49′ W long.; and
(7) 33°30.87′ N lat., 119°02.43′ W long.
(t) The 40 fm (73 m) depth contour around Tanner Bank off the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
(1) 32°43.40′ N lat., 119°08.56′ W long.;
(2) 32°41.36′ N lat., 119°05.02′ W long.;
(3) 32°40.07′ N lat., 119°05.59′ W long.;
(4) 32°41.51′ N lat., 119°09.76′ W long.; and
(5) 32°43.40′ N lat., 119°08.56′ W long.
(u) The 40 fm (73 m) depth contour around San Nicholas Island off the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
(1) 33°19.30′ N lat., 119°41.05′ W long.;
(2) 33°19.42′ N lat., 119°27.88′ W long.;
(3) 33°14.31′ N lat., 119°17.48′ W long.;
(4) 33°12.90′ N lat., 119°17.64′ W long.;
(5) 33°11.89′ N lat., 119°27.26′ W long.;
(6) 33°12.19′ N lat., 119°29.96′ W long.;
(7) 33°15.42′ N lat., 119°39.14′ W long.;
(8) 33°17.58′ N lat., 119°41.38′ W long.; and
(9) 33°19.30′ N lat., 119°41.05′ W long.
(v) The 40 fm (73 m) depth contour around Cortes Bank off the state of California is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
(1) 32°30.00′ N lat., 119°12.98′ W long.;
(2) 32°28.33′ N lat., 119°06.81′ W long.;
(3) 32°25.69′ N lat., 119°03.21′ W long.;
(4) 32°24.66′ N lat., 119°03.83′ W long.;
(5) 32°28.48′ N lat., 119°14.66′ W long.; and
(6) 32°30.00′ N lat., 119°12.98′ W long.
The additions read as follows:
(k) * * *
(15) 33°57.77′ N lat., 119°33.49′ W long.;
(16) 33°57.64′ N lat., 119°35.78′ W long.;
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(178) 40°10.13′ N lat., 124°21.92′ W long.;
(181) 40°06.39′ N lat., 124°17.26′ W long.;
(190) 40°01.00′ N lat., 124°09.96′ W long.;
(191) 39°58.07′ N lat., 124°11.81′ W long.;
(192) 39°56.39′ N lat., 124°08.69′ W long.;
(d) * * *
(205) 40°02.67′ N lat., 124°11.83′ W long.;
(206) 40°02.70′ N lat., 124°10.57′ W long.;
(207) 40°04.08′ N lat., 124°10.09′ W long.;
(208) 40°04.08′ N lat., 124°09.10′ W long.;
(209) 40°01.23′ N lat., 124°08.91′ W long.;
(210) 40°01.18′ N lat., 124°09.92′ W long.;
(211) 39°58.05′ N. lat., 124°11.87′ W long.;
(212) 39°56.39′ N lat., 124°08.70′ W long.;
(213) 39°54.64′ N lat., 124°07.31′ W long.;
(214) 39°53.87′ N lat., 124°07.95′ W long.;
(215) 39°52.42′ N lat., 124°08.18′ W long.;
(216) 39°49.64′ N lat., 124°06.05′ W long.;
(217) 39°49.30′ N lat., 124°04.60′ W long.;
(218) 39°48.49′ N lat., 124°03.86′ W long.;
(219) 39°47.73′ N lat., 124°04.59′ W long.;
(220) 39°42.50′ N lat., 124°00.60′ W long.;
(221) 39°34.23′ N lat., 123°56.82′ W long.;
(222) 39°33.00′ N lat., 123°56.44′ W long.;
(223) 39°30.96′ N lat., 123°56.00′ W long.;
(224) 39°31.34′ N lat., 123°56.71′ W long.;
(225) 39°32.03′ N lat., 123°57.44′ W long.;
(226) 39°31.43′ N lat., 123°58.16′ W long.;
(227) 39°05.56′ N lat., 123°57.24′ W long.;
(228) 39°01.75′ N lat., 123°56.83′ W long.;
(229) 38°59.52′ N lat., 123°55.95′ W long.;
(230) 38°58.98′ N lat., 123°56.57′ W long.;
(231) 38°57.50′ N lat., 123°56.57′ W long.;
(232) 38°53.91′ N lat., 123°56.00′ W long.;
(233) 38°42.57′ N lat., 123°46.60′ W long.;
(234) 38°28.72′ N lat., 123°35.61′ W long.;
(235) 38°28.01′ N lat., 123°36.47′ W long.;
(236) 38°20.94′ N lat., 123°31.26′ W long.;
(237) 38°15.94′ N lat., 123°25.33′ W long.;
(238) 38°10.95′ N lat., 123°23.19′ W long.;
(239) 38°05.52′ N lat., 123°22.90′ W long.;
(240) 38°08.46′ N lat., 123°26.23′ W long.;
(241) 38°06.95′ N lat., 123°28.03′ W long.;
(242) 38°06.25′ N lat., 123°29.70′ W long.;
(243) 38°04.57′ N lat., 123°31.37′ W long.;
(244) 38°02.32′ N lat., 123°31.09′ W long.;
(245) 37°59.97′ N lat., 123°28.43′ W long.;
(246) 37°58.10′ N lat., 123°26.69′ W long.;
(247) 37°55.46′ N lat., 123°27.05′ W long.;
(248) 37°51.51′ N lat., 123°24.86′ W long.;
(249) 37°45.01′ N lat., 123°12.09′ W long.;
(250) 37°35.67′ N lat., 123°01.56′ W long.;
(251) 37°26.62′ N lat., 122°56.21′ W long.;
(252) 37°14.41′ N lat., 122°49.07′ W long.;
(253) 37°11.00′ N lat., 122°45.87′ W long.;
(254) 37°07.00′ N lat., 122°41.97′ W long.;
(255) 37°03.19′ N lat., 122°38.31′ W long.;
(256) 37°00.99′ N lat., 122°35.51′ W long.;
(257) 36°58.31′ N lat., 122°27.56′ W long.;
(258) 37°00.54′ N lat., 122°24.74′ W long.;
(259) 36°57.81′ N lat., 122°24.65′ W long.;
(260) 36°58.54′ N lat., 122°21.67′ W long.;
(261) 36°56.52′ N lat., 122°21.70′ W long.;
(262) 36°55.37′ N lat., 122°18.45′ W long.;
(263) 36°52.16′ N lat., 122°12.17′ W long.;
(264) 36°51.53′ N lat., 122°10.67′ W long.;
(265) 36°48.05′ N lat., 122°07.59′ W long.;
(266) 36°47.35′ N lat., 122°03.27′ W long.;
(267) 36°50.71′ N lat., 121°58.17′ W long.;
(268) 36°48.89′ N lat., 121°58.90′ W long.;
(269) 36°47.70′ N lat., 121°58.76′ W long.;
(270) 36°48.37′ N lat., 121°51.15′ W long.;
(271) 36°45.74′ N lat., 121°54.18′ W long.;
(272) 36°45.50′ N lat., 121°57.73′ W long.;
(273) 36°44.02′ N lat., 121°58.55′ W long.;
(274) 36°38.84′ N lat., 122°01.32′ W long.;
(275) 36°35.63′ N lat., 122°00.98′ W long.;
(276) 36°32.47′ N lat., 121°59.17′ W long.;
(277) 36°32.52′ N lat., 121°57.62′ W long.;
(278) 36°30.16′ N lat., 122°00.55′ W long.;
(279) 36°24.56′ N lat., 121°59.19′ W long.;
(280) 36°22.19′ N lat., 122°00.30′ W long.;
(281) 36°20.62′ N lat., 122°02.93′ W long.;
(282) 36°18.89′ N lat., 122°05.18′ W long.;
(283) 36°14.45′ N lat., 121°59.44′ W long.;
(284) 36°13.73′ N lat., 121°57.38′ W long.;
(285) 36°14.41′ N lat., 121°55.45′ W long.;
(286) 36°10.25′ N lat., 121°43.08′ W long.;
(287) 36°07.67′ N lat., 121°40.92′ W long.;
(288) 36°02.51′ N lat., 121°36.76′ W long.;
(289) 36°01.04′ N lat., 121°36.68′ W long.;
(290) 36°00.00′ N lat., 121°35.15′ W long.;
(291) 35°57.84′ N lat., 121°33.10′ W long.;
(292) 35°45.57′ N lat., 121°27.26′ W long.;
(293) 35°39.02′ N lat., 121°22.86′ W long.;
(294) 35°25.92′ N lat., 121°05.52′ W long.;
(295) 35°16.26′ N lat., 121°01.50′ W long.;
(296) 35°07.60′ N lat., 120°56.49′ W long.;
(297) 34°57.77′ N lat., 120°53.87′ W long.;
(298) 34°42.30′ N lat., 120°53.42′ W long.;
(299) 34°37.69′ N lat., 120°50.04′ W long.;
(300) 34°30.13′ N lat., 120°44.45′ W long.;
(301) 34°27.00′ N lat., 120°39.24′ W long.;
(302) 34°24.71′ N lat., 120°35.37′ W long.;
(303) 34°21.63′ N lat., 120°24.86′ W long.;
(304) 34°24.39′ N lat., 120°16.65′ W long.;
(305) 34°22.48′ N lat., 119°56.42′ W long.;
(306) 34°18.54′ N lat., 119°46.26′ W long.;
(307) 34°16.37′ N lat., 119°45.12′ W long.;
(308) 34°15.91′ N lat., 119°47.29′ W long.;
(309) 34°13.80′ N lat., 119°45.40′ W long.;
(310) 34°11.69′ N lat., 119°41.80′ W long.;
(311) 34°09.98′ N lat., 119°31.87′ W long.;
(312) 34°08.12′ N lat., 119°27.71′ W long.;
(313) 34°06.35′ N lat., 119°32.65′ W long.;
(314) 34°06.80′ N lat., 119°40.08′ W long.;
(315) 34°07.48′ N lat., 119°47.54′ W long.;
(316) 34°08.21′ N lat., 119°54.90′ W long.;
(317) 34°06.85′ N lat., 120°05.60′ W long.;
(318) 34°07.03′ N lat., 120°10.47′ W long.;
(319) 34°08.77′ N lat., 120°18.46′ W long.;
(320) 34°11.89′ N lat., 120°28.09′ W long.;
(321) 34°12.53′ N lat., 120°29.82′ W long.;
(322) 34°09.02′ N lat., 120°37.47′ W long.;
(323) 34°01.01′ N lat., 120°31.17′ W long.;
(324) 33°58.07′ N lat., 120°28.33′ W long.;
(325) 33°53.37′ N lat., 120°14.43′ W long.;
(326) 33°50.53′ N lat., 120°07.20′ W long.;
(327) 33°45.88′ N lat., 120°04.26′ W long.;
(328) 33°38.19′ N lat., 119°57.85′ W long.;
(329) 33°38.19′ N lat., 119°50.42′ W long.;
(330) 33°42.36′ N lat., 119°49.60′ W long.;
(331) 33°53.95′ N lat., 119°53.81′ W long.;
(332) 33°55.99′ N lat., 119°41.40′ W long.;
(333) 33°58.48′ N lat., 119°27.90′ W long.;
(334) 33°59.24′ N lat., 119°23.61′ W long.;
(335) 33°59.35′ N lat., 119°21.71′ W long.;
(336) 33°59.94′ N lat., 119°19.57′ W long.;
(337) 34°04.48′ N lat., 119°15.32′ W long.;
(338) 34°02.80′ N lat., 119°12.95′ W long.;
(339) 34°02.39′ N lat., 119°07.17′ W long.;
(340) 34°03.75′ N lat., 119°04.72′ W long.;
(341) 34°01.82′ N lat., 119°03.24′ W long.;
(342) 33°59.33′ N lat., 119°03.49′ W long.;
(343) 33°59.01′ N lat., 118°59.56′ W long.;
(344) 33°59.51′ N lat., 118°57.25′ W long.;
(345) 33°58.83′ N lat., 118°52.50′ W long.;
(346) 33°58.55′ N lat., 118°41.86′ W long.;
(347) 33°55.10′ N lat., 118°34.25′ W long.;
(348) 33°54.30′ N lat., 118°38.71′ W long.;
(349) 33°50.88′ N lat., 118°37.02′ W long.;
(350) 33°39.78′ N lat., 118°18.40′ W long.;
(351) 33°35.50′ N lat., 118°16.85′ W long.;
(352) 33°32.46′ N lat., 118°10.90′ W long.;
(353) 33°34.11′ N lat., 117°54.07′ W long.;
(354) 33°31.61′ N lat., 117°49.30′ W long.;
(355) 33°16.36′ N lat., 117°35.48′ W long.;
(356) 33°06.81′ N lat., 117°22.93′ W long.;
(357) 32°59.28′ N lat., 117°19.69′ W long.;
(358) 32°55.37′ N lat., 117°19.55′ W long.;
(359) 32°53.35′ N lat., 117°17.05′ W long.;
(360) 32°53.36′ N lat., 117°19.12′ W long.;
(361) 32°46.42′ N lat., 117°23.45′ W long.;
(362) 32°42.71′ N lat., 117°21.45′ W long.; and
(363) 32°34.54′ N lat., 117°23.04′ W long.
(h) * * *
(281) 34°07.10′ N lat., 120°10.37′ W long.;
(282) 34°11.07′ N lat., 120°25.03′ W long.;
(283) 34°09.00′ N lat., 120°18.40′ W long.;
(284) 34°13.16′ N lat., 120°29.40′ W long.;
(285) 34°09.41′ N lat., 120°37.75′ W long.;
(286) 34°03.15′ N lat., 120°34.71′ W long.;
(287) 33°57.09′ N lat., 120°27.76′ W long.;
(288) 33°51.00′ N lat., 120°09.00′ W long.;
(289) 33°38.16′ N lat., 119°59.23′ W long.;
(290) 33°37.04′ N lat., 119°50.17′ W long.;
(291) 33°42.28′ N lat., 119°48.85′ W long.;
(292) 33°53.96′ N lat., 119°53.77′ W long.;
(293) 33°55.88′ N lat., 119°41.05′ W long.;
(294) 33°59.18′ N lat., 119°23.64′ W long.;
(295) 33°59.26′ N lat., 119°21.92′ W long.;
(296) 33°59.94′ N lat., 119°19.57′ W long.;
(297) 34°03.12′ N lat., 119°15.51′ W long.;
(298) 34°01.97′ N lat., 119°07.28′ W long.;
(299) 34°03.60′ N lat., 119°04.71′ W long.;
(300) 33°59.30′ N lat., 119°03.73′ W long.;
(301) 33°58.87′ N lat., 118°59.37′ W long.;
(302) 33°58.08′ N lat., 118°41.14′ W long.;
(303) 33°50.93′ N lat., 118°37.65′ W long.;
(304) 33°39.54′ N lat., 118°18.70′ W long.;
(305) 33°35.42′ N lat., 118°17.14′ W long.;
(306) 33°32.15′ N lat., 118°10.84′ W long.;
(307) 33°33.71′ N lat., 117°53.72′ W long.;
(308) 33°31.17′ N lat., 117°49.11′ W long.;
(309) 33°16.53′ N lat., 117°36.13′ W long.;
(310) 33°06.77′ N lat., 117°22.92′ W long.;
(311) 32°58.94′ N lat., 117°20.05′ W long.;
(312) 32°55.83′ N lat., 117°20.15′ W long.;
(313) 32°46.29′ N lat., 117°23.89′ W long.;
(314) 32°42.00′ N lat., 117°22.16′ W long.;
(315) 32°39.47′ N lat., 117°27.78′ W long.; and
(316) 32°34.83′ N lat., 117°24.69′ W long.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii)
(iii)
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii)
(e) * * *
(6)
(8)
(i)
(ii)
(i)
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) For the trawl fishery, NMFS will issue QP based on the following shorebased trawl allocations:
(e) * * *
(4) * * *
(i)
(g) * * *
(1)
(h) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(l) * * *
(2)
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Species with set-asides for the MS and C/P Coop Programs, as described in Table 1d and Table 2d to subpart C of this part.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Species with set-asides for the MS and C/P Programs, as described in Table 1d and Table 2d to subpart C of this part.
Table 1 (North) to Part 660, Subpart D—Limited Entry Trawl Rockfish Conservation Areas and Landing Allowances for non-IFQ Species and Pacific Whiting North of 40°10′ N Lat.
Table 1 (South) to Part 660, Subpart D—Limited Entry Trawl Rockfish Conservation Areas and Landing Allowances for non-IFQ Species and Pacific Whiting South of 40°10′ N Lat.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii)
(d) * * *
(10) * * *
(ii) Fishing for rockfish and lingcod is permitted shoreward of the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour within the CCAs when trip limits authorize such fishing and provided a valid declaration report as required at § 660.13(d) has been filed with NMFS OLE.
(f)
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) A vessel participating in the primary season will be constrained by the sablefish cumulative limit associated with each of the permits registered for use with that vessel. During the primary season, each vessel authorized to fish in that season under paragraph (a) of this section may take, retain, possess, and land sablefish, up to the cumulative limits for each of the permits registered for use with that vessel (
Table 2 (North) to Part 660, Subpart E—Non-Trawl Rockfish Conservation Areas and Trip Limits for Limited Entry Fixed Gear North of 40°10′ N Lat.
Table 2 (South) to Part 660, Subpart E—Non-Trawl Rockfish Conservation Areas and Trip Limits for Limited Entry Fixed Gear South of 40°10′ N Lat.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii)
(d) * * *
(11) * * *
(ii) Fishing for rockfish and lingcod is permitted shoreward of the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour within the CCAs when trip limits authorize such fishing and provided a valid declaration report as required at § 660.13(d) has been filed with NMFS OLE.
(f)
(c) * * *
(3) The landing includes California halibut of a size required by California Fish and Game Code section 8392, which states: “No California halibut may be taken, possessed or sold which measures less than 22 in (56 cm) in total length. Total length means the shortest distance between the tip of the jaw or snout, whichever extends farthest while the mouth is closed, and the tip of the longest lobe of the tail, measured while the halibut is lying flat in natural repose, without resort to any force other than the swinging or fanning of the tail.”
Table 3 (North) to Part 660, Subpart F—Non-Trawl Rockfish Conservation Areas and Trip Limits for Open Access Gears North of 40°10′ N Lat.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1)
(i) * * *
(D) * * *
(
(
(
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(B)
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(A)
(
(
(
(
(
(B)
(C)
(ii) * * *
(A)
(
(
(
(
(
(D)
(iii) * * *
(A)
(
(
(
(
(
(B)
(
(
(D)
(iv)
(v) * * *
(A)
(
(
(
(
(B)
(d)
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 |