Page Range | 64023-64222 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
83 FR 64115 - Availability of Final Evaluation Findings of State Coastal Programs and National Estuarine Research Reserves | |
83 FR 64126 - Re-Establishment of the Great Lakes Advisory Board | |
83 FR 64125 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; EPA's ENERGY STAR Program in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors (Renewal) | |
83 FR 64027 - [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0288 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0283; FRL-9986-73] HEAD6-Benzyladenine; Pesticide Tolerances | |
83 FR 64113 - Evaluation of State Coastal Management Programs | |
83 FR 64023 - Single-Counterparty Credit Limits for Bank Holding Companies and Foreign Banking Organizations; Correction | |
83 FR 64133 - Issuance of Priority Review Voucher; Rare Pediatric Disease Product | |
83 FR 64116 - Fees for Reviews of the Rule Enforcement Programs of Designated Contract Markets and Registered Futures Associations | |
83 FR 64128 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 64173 - Overseas Schools Advisory Council; Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 64159 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Cambrex High Point, Inc. | |
83 FR 64159 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Noramco Inc. | |
83 FR 64158 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. | |
83 FR 64151 - Notice of Public Meeting, Idaho Falls District Resource Advisory Council Meeting | |
83 FR 64160 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Mylan Technologies, Inc. | |
83 FR 64151 - Notice of Realty Action: Recreation and Public Purposes Act Classification; Arizona | |
83 FR 64158 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Siegfried USA, LLC | |
83 FR 64024 - Military Ocean Terminal Concord, CA; Restricted Area | |
83 FR 64159 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Eli-Elsohly Laboratories | |
83 FR 64053 - Pacific Ocean at Naval Base Guam Telecommunication Site, Finegayan Small Arms Range, on the Northwestern Coast of Guam; Danger Zone | |
83 FR 64175 - Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property Release at the Cullman Regional-Folsom Field Airport, Vinemont, Alabama | |
83 FR 64152 - Acadia National Park Advisory Commission Notice of Public Meetings | |
83 FR 64177 - Loan Guaranty: Assistance to Eligible Individuals in Acquiring Specially Adapted Housing; Cost-of-Construction Index | |
83 FR 64053 - The Standard for Determining Joint-Employer Status; Extension of Comment Period | |
83 FR 64174 - Availability of Record of Decision for the Environmental Impact Statement, Tucson International Airport, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. | |
83 FR 64127 - Submission for OMB Review; Authorized Negotiators and Integrity of Unit Prices | |
83 FR 64128 - Information Collection; Value Engineering Requirements | |
83 FR 64166 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order Granting an Extension to Limited Exemptions From Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS in Connection With the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program Until June 30, 2019 | |
83 FR 64047 - Proposed Establishment of the Eastern Connecticut Highlands Viticultural Area | |
83 FR 64160 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act | |
83 FR 64099 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 64098 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 64177 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
83 FR 64175 - Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or Modification of a Railroad Signal System | |
83 FR 64176 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
83 FR 64101 - Notice of Public Meeting of the West Virginia Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 64102 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Virginia Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 64101 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Pennsylvania Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 64167 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting an Extension to Limited Exemptions From Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS In Connection With the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Programs Until June 30, 2019 | |
83 FR 64110 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans | |
83 FR 64105 - Certain Pasta From Italy: Rescission of 2017 Countervailing Duty Administrative Review | |
83 FR 64124 - Electric Quarterly Report Users Group Meeting; Notice of Electric Quarterly Report Users Group Meeting | |
83 FR 64030 - Suspension of Community Eligibility | |
83 FR 64023 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA | |
83 FR 64114 - Marine Mammals and Endangered Species | |
83 FR 64156 - Certain Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation | |
83 FR 64155 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
83 FR 64126 - Regular Meeting; Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board | |
83 FR 64174 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Textron Aviation Inc. | |
83 FR 64149 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Check-In Permit and Use Report | |
83 FR 64145 - California; Emergency and Related Determinations | |
83 FR 64141 - California; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration | |
83 FR 64100 - Notice of Proposed New Fee Site; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act | |
83 FR 64118 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
83 FR 64102 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the North Dakota Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 64032 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Permit Renewal Applications | |
83 FR 64150 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Efficacy of Oak Savanna Restoration History Information Request | |
83 FR 64110 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
83 FR 64112 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
83 FR 64115 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
83 FR 64109 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
83 FR 64114 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
83 FR 64126 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
83 FR 64024 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Washington Ship Canal, Seattle, WA | |
83 FR 64130 - Determination That IC-GREEN (Indocyanine Green for Injection), 10 Milligrams/Vial, 40 Milligrams/Vial, and 50 Milligrams/Vial Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness | |
83 FR 64106 - Monosodium Glutamate From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
83 FR 64107 - Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From Turkey: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
83 FR 64105 - Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India: Rescission of 2017 Countervailing Duty Administrative Review | |
83 FR 64034 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Non-American Fisheries Act Crab Vessels Operating as Catcher Vessels Using Pot Gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska | |
83 FR 64100 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 64153 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Permit Applications-Minimum Requirements for Legal, Financial, Compliance, and Related Information | |
83 FR 64103 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Survey of State Government Research and Development | |
83 FR 64120 - Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, Protests: Dakota and Goodhue Counties | |
83 FR 64118 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
83 FR 64119 - Notice of Petition for Enforcement: Great Divide Wind Farm 2, LLC; Great Divide Wind Farm 3, LLC | |
83 FR 64134 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 64134 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 64135 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 64132 - Data Integrity and Compliance With Drug CGMP: Questions and Answers; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
83 FR 64120 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
83 FR 64124 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Vermillion Power, L.L.C. | |
83 FR 64163 - Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 64163 - Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education; Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 64163 - Proposal Review Panel for Physics; Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 64162 - Proposal Review Panel for Physics; Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 64045 - Impossible Foods, Inc.; Filing of Color Additive Petition | |
83 FR 64123 - Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Palmyra to Ogden A-Line Project; Northern Natural Gas Company | |
83 FR 64131 - Allied Pharma, Inc., et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of Nine Abbreviated New Drug Applications | |
83 FR 64104 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
83 FR 64171 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to Amendments to the ICE Clear Europe Limited Liquidity Plan | |
83 FR 64168 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 15 Relating to the Reference Price for Exchange-Listed Securities | |
83 FR 64142 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
83 FR 64145 - Kansas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
83 FR 64166 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
83 FR 64164 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
83 FR 64138 - Pennsylvania; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
83 FR 64135 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
83 FR 64141 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Disaster Assistance Registration | |
83 FR 64139 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
83 FR 64154 - U.S.-UK Trade Agreement: Advice on the Probable Economic Effect of Providing Duty-Free Treatment for Currently Dutiable Imports; Institution of Investigation and Scheduling of Hearing | |
83 FR 64146 - Intent To Request Revision From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: Aircraft Operator Security, 49 CFR Part 1544 | |
83 FR 64147 - Intent To Request Revision From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: Certified Cargo Screening Standard Security Program | |
83 FR 64097 - Request for Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
83 FR 64151 - Notice of Filing of Plat of Survey; Arizona | |
83 FR 64161 - Workforce Information Advisory Council | |
83 FR 64056 - Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Revisions to Part 1 General Provisions Rules | |
83 FR 64055 - Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Michigan Minor New Source Review | |
83 FR 64026 - Revisions to California State Implementation Plan; South Coast Air Quality Management District, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management; Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard | |
83 FR 64036 - Policy on No-Action Letters and the BCFP Product Sandbox | |
83 FR 64059 - Water Quality Standards; Establishment of a Numeric Criterion for Selenium for the State of California | |
83 FR 64157 - Notice of Appointment of Individuals To Serve as Members of the Performance Review Board | |
83 FR 64078 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to National Park Service's Research and Monitoring Activities in Southern Alaska National Parks | |
83 FR 64180 - Covered Investment Fund Research Reports | |
83 FR 64046 - Information and Communication Technology | |
83 FR 64164 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
Census Bureau
Economic Development Administration
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Transportation Security Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad 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.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Final rule, correcting amendments.
On August 6, 2018, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) published a final rule in the
Effective on December 13, 2018.
Benjamin McDonough, Assistant General Counsel, (202) 452-2036, Pam Nardolilli, Special Counsel, (202) 452-3289, Chris Callanan, Counsel, (202) 452-3594, or Lucy Chang, Counsel, (202) 475-6331, Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869.
The Board is correcting two errors in the final rule that was published in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Federal Reserve System, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter II of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
12 U.S.C. 321-338a, 481-486, 1467a(g), 1818, 1828, 1831n, 1831o, 1831p-l, 1831w, 1835, 1844(b), 1844(c), 3904, 3906-3909, 4808, 5361, 5365, 5366, 5367, 5368, 5371.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation; modification.
The Coast Guard has modified a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Tower Drawbridge over the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The modified deviation extends the period the bridge may remain in the closed-to-navigation position to allow the bridge owner to complete mechanical and electrical rehabilitation work on the bridge.
This modified deviation is effective without actual notice from December 13, 2018 through 6 a.m. on January 1, 2019. For the purposes of enforcement actual notice will be used from December 10, 2018 until December 13, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2018-0153], is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516; email
On October 19, 2018, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, California” in the
The Tower Drawbridge, mile 59.0, across the Sacramento River, has a vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw operates as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. on December 1, 2018 to 6 a.m. on January 1, 2019 to complete electrical and mechanical rehabilitation on the bridge. The extension of time is necessary due to supply chain disruptions and atmospheric conditions. This temporary deviation modification has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation modification were raised.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies if at least 72-hour notice is given to the bridge operator. There is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Ballard Bridge, mile 1.1, the Fremont Bridge, mile 2.6, and the University Bridge, mile 4.3, all crossing the Lake Washington Ship Canal at Seattle, WA. The deviation is necessary to accommodate re-routed roadway traffic while the Alaskan Way Viaduct is closed. This deviation allows the subject bridges to remain in the closed-to-navigation position to allow congested roadway traffic to move easier.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on January 11, 2019, to 7 p.m. on February 9, 2019.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-1053 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email
Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), the owner of the impacted drawbridges, requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Ballard Bridge, mile 1.1, the Fremont Bridge, mile 2.6, and the University Bridge, mile 4.3, all crossing the Lake Washington Ship Canal at Seattle, WA, to facilitate morning and afternoon re-routed roadway traffic. Washington Department of Transportation is closing the Alaskan Way Viaduct forever, and have not finished building new ramp approaches to the new SR99 Tunnel into Seattle, WA. During the closure of the viaduct, SDOT will be re-routing roadway traffic into Seattle across the Lake Washington Ship Canal, and requested to extend the closure hours of the subject bridges. The Ballard Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 29 feet in the closed-to-navigation position; the Fremont Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 14 feet (31 feet of vertical clearance for the center 36 horizontal feet) in the closed-to-navigation position; the University Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet (45 feet at the center) in the closed-to-navigation position. Vertical clearances refer to the Mean Water Level of Lake Washington. The normal operating schedule for the three subject bridges is in 33 CFR 117.1051(d).
During this deviation period, the three subject bridge draws need not open per the following table for vessels of less than 1000 gross tons, unless the vessel has in tow a vessel of 1000 gross tones or more:
Waterway usage on the Lake Washington Ship Canal range from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Vessels able to pass through the subject bridges in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. All three bridges will not be able to open for emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridges so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the three drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedules immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Direct final rule.
The U.S. Army Military Surface Deployment and Distribution
This rule is effective February 11, 2019 without further notice, unless the Corps receives adverse comment by January 14, 2019. If we receive such adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
You may submit comments, identified by docket number COE-2018-0006, by any of the following methods:
Mr. David Olson, Headquarters, Operations and Regulatory Community of Practice, Washington, DC at 202-761-4922 or Ms. Naomi Schowalter, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, at 415-503-6763.
By letter dated October 23, 2018, SDDC's 834th Transportation Battalion Commander requested the restricted area name change from “Suisun Bay at Naval Weapons Station, Concord; restricted area” to “Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO); restricted area.” The request was made because of the transfer of the restricted area property from the U.S. Navy to the U.S. Army SDDC. In response to this request by the SDDC, and pursuant to its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps is amending the regulations in 33 CFR part 334 by changing the name of the restricted area.
The Corps is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comment. We are only changing the name of the facility associated with this restricted area, and are not changing the restricted area itself or the rules governing that restricted area.
a.
The Corps determined this direct final rule is not a significant regulatory action. This regulatory action determination is based on this direct final rule being limited to a name change for the facility associated with the restricted area, from “Suisun Bay at Naval Weapons Station, Concord” to “Military Ocean Terminal Concord.” This direct final rule is issued with respect to a military function of the Department of Defense.
b.
c.
d.
Danger zones, Navigation (water), Restricted areas, Waterways.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Corps amends 33 CFR part 334 as follows:
40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3).
(a) * * *
(b)
(2) The regulations in this section shall be enforced by the Commanding Officer, Military Ocean Terminal Concord, and such agencies as he/she shall designate.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing action on three state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of California addressing the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These SIP revisions address the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) portions of the California SIP.
This rule is effective on January 14, 2019.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0587. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Laura Yannayon, EPA Region 9, (415) 972-3534,
Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.
On August 20, 2018 (83 FR 42063), the EPA proposed to approve the SIP revisions listed in Table 1, addressing the NNSR requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the SCAQMD, SJVAPCD and YSAQMD.
We proposed approval of these SIP revisions because we determined that the 2008 ozone certification submitted for each district fulfills the 40 CFR 51.1114 revision requirement and meets the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110 and the minimum SIP requirements of 40 CFR 51.165.
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received three comments on the proposed rule. None of those comments are germane to our evaluation of the submitted 2008 ozone certifications for each district.
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the 2008 ozone certifications as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(510) New additional materials for the following APCD was submitted on November 16, 2017 by the Governor's designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii)
(
(
(511) New additional materials for the following APCD's were submitted on June 19, 2018 by the Governor's designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii)
(
(
(B) Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District.
(
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of 6-benzyladenine in or on avocados, peppers, tomatoes, cucumbers, melons, and squash. Interregional Research Project Number 4 and Valent BioSciences LLC have requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective December 13, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before February 11, 2019, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The dockets for this action, identified by docket identification (ID)
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0288 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0283 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before February 11, 2019. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID numbers EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0288 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0283, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Based upon review of the data supporting each petition, EPA is establishing tolerance levels for 6-benzyladenine on avocados, tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, melons and squash in one final rule. The reasons for these changes are explained in Part III.E. of this document.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
EPA evaluated the available toxicological and exposure data on 6-benzyladenine and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. A summary of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on those data can be found within the document
The available data demonstrated that the predominant adverse effect from exposure to 6-benzyladenine was a significant reduction in body weight, including an increased susceptibility of body weight effects in fetuses and offspring. Despite these effects, EPA determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor was reduced to 1X. EPA conducted a quantitative aggregate risk assessment, taking into account chronic exposures to residues of 6-benzyladenine in food and drinking water (no residential exposures are anticipated) and concluded that risks do not exceed EPA's level of concern.
Based upon its evaluation, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of 6-benzyladenine. Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of 6-benzyladenine, in or on tomato, pepper, cucumber, melon, and squash at 0.01 ppm and in or on avocado at 0.02 ppm.
Adequate enforcement methodologies to quantitatively determine 6-benzyladenine residues by liquid chromatography/mass spectrometer/mass spectrometer (LC/MS/MS) (Meth-209, Determination of 6-Benzyladenine (6-BA) in Selected Fruiting Vegetable and Cucurbit Vegetable Raw Agricultural and Processed Commodities and Meth-210, Determination of 6-Benzyladenine (6-BA) in Selected Oily Crop Raw Agricultural Commodities) are available to enforce the tolerance expression. The methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not established an MRL for 6-benzyladenine; however, Canada and the European Union (EU) have set default MRLs at 0.1 ppm (Canada) and 0.01 ppm (EU), respectively.
One comment was received in response to each of the petitions. Each comment generally opposed pesticide residues on food; only one mentioned 6-benzyladenine by name. Neither comment was accompanied by any substantiation or data supporting a conclusion that the tolerances being established in this action do not meet the FFDCA safety standard. Although EPA recognizes that some individuals would oppose any use of pesticides on food, section 408 of the FFDCA authorizes EPA to set tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on food when it determines that the tolerance meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. EPA has made that determination for the 6-benzyladenine tolerances established by this final rule.
The applicant requested a tolerance for residues of 6-benzyladenine on avocado at 0.05 ppm. Based on available residue data and using the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) calculator, EPA has determined that a tolerance for residues of 6-benzyladenine on avocado at 0.02 ppm is appropriate. In addition, the applicant requested to amend the current exemption, 40 CFR 180.1150, for residues of 6-benzyladenine by adding fruiting vegetables (tomatoes and peppers) and cucurbit vegetables (cucumbers, melons, and squash) at 20 parts per million (ppm) at a maximum of five applications (total 18.8 grams of active ingredient per acre per season) with a seven-day interval between applications. Due to the toxicological profile of the chemical and the measurable residues, EPA has concluded that a tolerance is the appropriate regulatory mechanism for covering residues of 6-benzyladenine under the FFDCA. Based on the available residue data and using the OECD calculator, EPA has determined that tolerances for residues of 6-benzyladenine on tomato, pepper, cucumber, melon, and squash at 0.01 ppm are appropriate.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to EPA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) nor is it considered a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this action, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 212-3966.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues this final rule to implement administrative revisions to the renewal process for Federal vessel permits, licenses, and endorsements, and dealer permits in the NMFS Southeast Region. This final rule removes the regulatory requirement that NMFS must mail a renewal application to a permit holder whose Federal vessel, license, or endorsement, or dealer permit is expiring. NMFS will continue to provide notice of the upcoming expiration date to the permit holder. This final rule also removes the regulatory requirement that NMFS must notify an applicant of any deficiency in a renewal application only through sending a letter via traditional mail, such as through the U.S. Postal Service, which allows NMFS expanded options for notifying permit holders. The purpose of this final rule is to reduce the administrative costs and burden to NMFS of renewing Federal permits, while still maintaining the renewal notice, information, and services to the public.
This final rule is effective on January 14, 2019.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to Adam Bailey, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, or the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by email to
Sarah Stephenson, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
In the U.S. southeast region, NMFS and regional fishery management councils manage fisheries in Federal waters under the under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801
On August 1, 2018, NMFS published a proposed rule and requested public comment on possible administrative process revisions to the renewal of Federal vessel permits, licenses, or endorsements, and Federal dealer permits (hereafter referred to collectively as permits) for species managed under multiple fishery management plans (FMPs) developed by Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (83 FR 37455). The proposed rule outlined the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the management measures described in the proposed rule and implemented by this final rule is provided below.
This final rule removes the requirement that the Regional Administrator (RA) for the NMFS Southeast Region automatically mails a renewal application with the notice sent to a permit holder whose Federal permit is expiring. Instead, approximately 2 months prior to the expiration date of the permit, the RA will continue to provide notice to each permit holder through a letter, email, or other appropriate means, and in the notice provide the available options for an applicant to obtain a permit renewal application.
NMFS will continue to mail renewal applications upon request from an applicant. Permit holders may call the NMFS Southeast Permits Office to make that request at 1-877-376-4877, Monday through Friday between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., eastern time. Permit holders may also obtain applications in person or through written request from the NMFS Southeast Permits Office, located at 263 13th Ave. South, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701.
Applications to renew a Federal permit are currently available for download and printing from the NMFS Southeast Permits Office website at
In addition, NMFS has continued to expand the number of renewal applications that can be accessed and submitted online at the Southeast Permits Office website. This option includes the ability to pay application fees electronically. As of October 3, 2018, applicants can submit applications online to renew the majority of the Federal permits in the southeast region.
This final rule also removes the requirement that the RA must notify an applicant of any deficiency in a renewal application only by a letter sent through traditional mail. NMFS may notify a permit holder of an application
NMFS expects this final rule to reduce administrative labor and material costs associated with mailing permit renewal applications and letters of application deficiency to permit holders by allowing NMFS the flexibility to use more efficient means to provide the permit renewal applications and notifications of application deficiency.
NMFS does not expect this final rule to affect the overall number of annual permit renewals that NMFS receives or change the average time necessary for an applicant to complete an application. This final rule will not result in any change to fisheries operations.
As described in 50 CFR 622.4(g)(1), NMFS reminds permit holders that a completed renewal application along with required supporting documentation, must be submitted to the RA at least 30 days prior to the date on which the applicant desires to have the permit effective. This final rule does not revise this permit renewal requirement.
Although not a regulatory requirement, NMFS has historically mailed renewal applications for Federal operator cards (required for the Atlantic dolphin and wahoo, and South Atlantic rock shrimp commercial fisheries) to vessel operators prior to the expiration date. Upon implementation of this final rule, NMFS will not automatically mail a renewal application to individuals with an operator card prior to the expiration date; however, similar to the notification of permit holders with Federal permits discussed in this final rule, NMFS intends to continue providing notification to a vessel operator with an operator card of its upcoming expiration prior to that date. Additionally, NMFS may use methods other than by letter to notify applicants that a renewal application contains deficiencies.
NMFS received 23 comments from individuals and a fisheries consulting company on the proposed rule. The majority of the comments were in support of the proposed rule. NMFS acknowledges the comments in favor of all or part of the proposed rule, and agrees with them. Comments that were beyond the scope of the proposed rule are not responded to in this final rule. Comments specifically in opposition to all or some of the actions in the proposed rule, as well as NMFS' respective responses, are summarized below.
NMFS does not expect this final rule to change the average time required for an applicant to complete a permit renewal application. NMFS will continue to provide permit reporting requirements and instructions for viewing vessel reporting status in the permit renewal notification, which NMFS sends to every permit holder approximately 2 months prior to the expiration date of a permit. NMFS does not expect this final rule to affect the ability of any permit holder to renew a permit.
This final rule also allows NMFS to use expanded options for notifying permit holders about permit renewals. NMFS will continue to notify the permit holder approximately 2 months prior to the expiration date of their permit through a letter, email, or other appropriate means that may be available. That renewal notification will also include instructions for obtaining an application.
Further, as discussed in the response to
The RA for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined that this final rule is consistent with the applicable FMPs in the Gulf and South Atlantic, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this final rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this final rule.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this rule would not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No significant issues were raised by public comments related to the economic impacts on small businesses, and no changes to this final rule were made in response to public comments. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that OMB has approved under control number 0648-0205. Public reporting burdens for renewal applications in the Southeast Region Permit Family of Forms are estimated to vary between 30 and 55 minutes, depending on the applicable form. The estimated reporting burdens are based on an individual response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This final rule does not change existing collection-of-information requirements or estimated reporting burdens. Send comments regarding the burden estimates, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden to Adam Bailey, NMFS Southeast Regional Office (see
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person will be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved collections of information may be viewed at
Commercial, Dealer, Endorsement, Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf of Mexico, License, Permit, South Atlantic.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(g) * * *
(1)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by non-American Fisheries Act (AFA) crab vessels that are subject to sideboard limits, and operating as catcher vessels (CVs) using pot gear, in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2018 Pacific cod sideboard limit established for non-AFA crab vessels that are operating as CVs using pot gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 10, 2018, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2018.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.
The 2018 Pacific cod sideboard limit established for non-AFA crab vessels, and that are operating as CVs using pot
In accordance with § 680.22(e)(2)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the 2018 Pacific cod sideboard limit established for non-AFA crab vessels that are operating as CVs using pot gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a sideboard directed fishing allowance of 560 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 4 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 680.22(e)(3), the Regional Administrator finds that this sideboard directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by non-AFA crab vessels that are operating as CVs using pot gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the sideboard directed fishing closure of Pacific cod for non-AFA crab vessels that are subject to sideboard limits, and that are operating as CVs using pot gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of December 6, 2018.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 680.22 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Proposed policy guidance and procedural rule; proposed information collection; request for comment.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau or BCFP) invites the public to take this opportunity to comment on its proposed Policy on No-Action Letters and the BCFP Product Sandbox, which is intended to carry out certain of the Bureau's authorities under Federal consumer financial law; and a proposed information collection associated with applications submitted by applicants requesting admission to the BCFP Product Sandbox under the proposed Policy as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before February 11, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. [CFPB-2018-0042], by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For additional information about the proposed Policy, contact Paul Watkins, Assistant Director; Edward Blatnik, Senior Counsel; Albert Chang, Counsel; Office of Innovation, at
Documentation prepared in support of the information collection request is available at
In section 1021(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), Congress established the Bureau's statutory purpose as ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services and that markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent, and competitive.
Congress has given the Bureau a variety of authorities under Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act and the enumerated consumer laws
Pursuant to the purpose, objectives, and certain of the authorities listed above, the Bureau proposed its Policy on No-Action Letters in October 2014
In line with the above authority, the Bureau is proposing to revise the 2016 Policy and proposing the BCFP Product Sandbox through its proposed Policy on No-Action Letters and the BCFP Product Sandbox (Policy) in order to more effectively carry out its statutory purpose and objectives. As noted, the Bureau has provided only one No-Action Letter under the 2016 Policy. The Bureau believes this strongly suggests that both the process required to obtain a No-Action Letter and the relief available under the 2016 Policy have not provided firms with sufficient incentives to seek No-Action Letters from Bureau staff. Accordingly, the Bureau is seeking comment on a number of changes to the 2016 Policy that would address these issues and bring certain aspects of the Bureau's policy more into alignment with no-action letter
The proposed Policy has the following overarching goals: (1) Streamlining the application process; (2) streamlining the Bureau's processing of applications; (3) expanding the types of statutory and/or regulatory relief available;
To more closely align Part I with certain aspects of no-action letter programs offered by other Federal agencies, the Bureau is re-assessing data-sharing requirements and time-period limitations for No-Action Letters available under Part I.
Under the 2016 Policy, a No-Action letter is a staff recommendation of no-action relief. Under Part I of the proposed Policy, in contrast, No-Action Letters would be issued by duly authorized officials of the Bureau to provide recipients greater assurance that the Bureau itself stands behind the no-action relief provided by the letters. Whereas UDAAP-focused No-Action Letters were expected to be particularly uncommon under the 2016 Policy, there would be no such expectation under Part I of the proposed Policy.
Finally, Part I would include a new section concerning Bureau coordination with other regulators that offer no-action letters or similar forms of relief.
In keeping with the “sandbox” concept, approval relief and exemption relief would be provided for a limited period of time. The Bureau expects that two years would be appropriate in most cases.
Finally, like Part I, Part II would have a streamlined application and review process, and the Bureau would expect to grant or deny an application within 60 days of notifying the applicant that the Bureau has deemed the application to
The Bureau invites comments with respect to any aspect of the proposed Policy. The Bureau is particularly interested in comment on the scope of the grounds for revocation, including whether there are additional changes in law that should be included as grounds for revocation.
The Bureau has concluded that, if finalized, this Policy Guidance would constitute an agency general statement of policy and a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice exempt from the notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The Policy is intended to provide information regarding the Bureau's plans to exercise its discretion to provide no-action, approval, and exemption relief, and to describe the procedural components of such discretion. The Policy does not impose any legal requirements on third parties, nor does it create or confer any substantive rights on third parties that could be enforceable in any administrative or civil proceeding. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Bureau conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on the new information collection requirements in accordance with the PRA (
The Proposed Policy contains revised information collection requirements which consist of the information that should be submitted in applications for admission to the BCFP Product Sandbox as described below in Section II.B. Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the 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 document will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The text of the proposed Policy is as follows:
In section 1021(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), Congress established the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection's (Bureau's) statutory purpose as ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services and that markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent, and competitive.
Congress has given the Bureau a variety of authorities under Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act and the enumerated consumer laws
The Policy on No-Action Letters and the BCFP Product Sandbox (Policy) sets forth the Bureau's policy and procedures regarding (i) issuance of No-Action Letters; and (ii) admission to the BCFP Product Sandbox, which involves issuance of (a) approvals by order and/or exemptions by order, and (b) no-action relief. The Policy's main purpose is to provide a mechanism through which the Bureau may more effectively carry out its statutory purpose and objectives.
The Policy has two parts: (I) No-Action Letters; (II) the BCFP Product Sandbox. The Bureau considers Part I and Part II to be mutually exclusive.
This part consists of six sections:
• Section A describes No-Action Letters.
• Section B describes information that should be included in applications for a No-Action Letter.
• Section C lists factors the Bureau intends to consider in deciding whether to grant an application for a No-Action Letter.
• Section D describes the Bureau's procedures for issuing No-Action Letters.
• Section E describes how the Bureau intends to coordinate with other regulators with respect to No-Action Letters.
• Section F describes Bureau disclosure of information about No-Action Letters.
A No-Action Letter under Part I is a document provided to a particular entity or entities, based on particular facts and circumstances, through which the Bureau exercises its discretionary supervision and enforcement authority by providing no-action relief.
Applications for a No-Action Letter should include the following:
1. The identity of the entity or entities applying for a No-Action Letter;
2. A description of the consumer financial product or service in question, including (a) how the product or service functions, and the terms on which it will be offered; and (b) the manner in which it is offered or provided, including any consumer disclosures;
3. An explanation of the potential consumer benefits of the product or service and/or the manner in which it is offered or provided;
4. An explanation of the potential consumer risks posed by the product or service and/or the manner in which it is offered or provided, and how the applicant(s) intends to mitigate such risks;
5. An identification of the statutory and/or regulatory provisions from which the applicant(s) seeks no-action relief and an identification of the potential uncertainty, ambiguity, or barrier that such relief would address;
6. If an applicant(s) wishes to request confidential treatment under the Freedom of Information Act,
7. If an applicant(s) wishes the Bureau to coordinate with other regulators, the applicant(s) should identify those regulators, including but not limited to those that have been contacted about offering or providing the product or service in question.
The Bureau invites applications from trade associations, service providers,
A trade association, service provider, or other third-party applicant should endeavor to submit a complete application. However, if a third-party applicant is unable to submit a complete application,
Applications may be submitted via email to:
In deciding whether to grant an application for a No-Action Letter, the Bureau intends to consider the quality and persuasiveness of the application, with particular emphasis on the information specified in subsections I.B.3, I.B.4, and I.B.5.
The Bureau intends to grant or deny an application within 60 days of notifying the applicant that the Bureau has deemed the application to be complete.
When the Bureau decides to grant an application for a No-Action Letter, it intends to provide the recipient(s) with a No-Action Letter signed by the Assistant Director of the Office of Innovation or other members of the Office of Innovation, duly authorized by the Bureau, that sets forth the specific terms and conditions of the no-action relief provided.
1. Identify the recipient(s);
2. Specify the subject matter scope of the letter,
3. State that the letter is limited to the recipient's (or recipients') offering or providing the described aspects of the product or service, and that it does not apply to the recipient's (or recipients') offering or providing different aspects of the product or service;
4. State that the letter is limited to the recipient(s), and that it does not apply to any other persons or entities;
5. Require the recipient(s) to inform the Bureau of material changes to information included in the application that would materially increase the risk of material, tangible harm to consumers;
6. Specify any other limitations or conditions, and the extent that the Bureau intends to publicly disclose information about the No-Action Letter;
7. State that, subject to good faith, substantial compliance with the terms and conditions of the letter, and in the exercise of its discretion, the Bureau will not make supervisory findings or bring a supervisory or enforcement action against the recipient(s) predicated on the recipient's (or recipients') offering or providing the described aspects of the product or service under (a) its authority to prevent unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices;
8. State that, if the No-Action Letter is revoked for a reason other than the recipient's (or recipients') failure to substantially comply in good faith with the terms and conditions of the letter, the revocation is prospective only;
In certain circumstances, the Bureau may revoke the No-Action Letter in whole or in part. Based, in part, on its knowledge of no-action letter programs operated by other Federal agencies, the Bureau anticipates revocation to be quite rare. The Bureau expects the No-action Letter to specify the grounds of revocation, which the Bureau anticipates will be: (i) Failure to substantially comply in good faith with the terms and conditions of the letter; (ii) a determination by the Bureau that the recipient's (or recipients') offering or providing the described aspects of the product or service is causing material, tangible, harm to consumers; and (iii) a determination by the Bureau that the legal uncertainty, ambiguity, or barrier that was the basis for grant of a No-Action Letter has changed as a result of as statutory change or a Supreme Court decision.
Before revoking a No-Action Letter, the Bureau will notify the recipient(s) of the grounds for revocation, and permit an opportunity to respond within a reasonable period of time. If the Bureau determines that the recipients(s) failed to substantially comply in good faith with the terms and conditions of the No-Action Letter, it will offer the recipient(s) an opportunity to cure the failure within a reasonable period of time before revoking the No-Action Letter. If the Bureau revokes or partially revokes a No-Action Letter, it will do so in writing and it will specify the reason(s) for its decision. The Bureau intends to allow the recipient(s) to wind-down the offering or providing of the describe aspects of the product or service during an appropriate period after revocation, unless the revocation was based upon the product or service causing material, tangible harm to consumers and a wind-down period would increase such harm.
Section 1015 of the Dodd-Frank Act instructs the Bureau to coordinate with Federal agencies and State regulators, as appropriate, to promote consistent regulatory treatment of consumer financial and investment products and services.
Furthermore, the Bureau wishes to coordinate with other regulators more generally. To this end, the Bureau intends to enter into agreements whenever practicable to coordinate relief under Part I with similar forms of relief offered by State, Federal, or international regulators.
The Bureau intends to publish No-Action Letters on its website, as well as, in appropriate cases, a version or summary of the application. The Bureau also may publish denials of applications on its website, including an explanation of why the application was denied, particularly if it determines that doing so would be in the public interest.
Public disclosure of any other information regarding No-Action Letters is governed by applicable law, including the Dodd-Frank Act,
The Bureau anticipates that much of the information submitted by applicants in their applications, and by recipients during the pendency of the No-Action Letter, will qualify as confidential information, which may include confidential supervisory information and/or business information, under the Disclosure Rule.
Disclosure of information or data provided to the Bureau under the Policy to other Federal and State agencies is governed by applicable law, including the Dodd-Frank Act
To the extent the Bureau wishes to publicly disclose non-confidential information regarding a No-Action Letter, the terms of such disclosure will be included in the letter. The Bureau intends to draft the No-Action Letter in a manner such that confidential information is not disclosed. Consistent with applicable law and its own rules, the Bureau will not seek to publicly disclose any information that would conflict with consumers' privacy interests.
This part consists of seven sections:
• Section A describes the three types of relief available to participants in the BCFP Product Sandbox.
• Section B describes information that should be included in applications for admission to the BCFP Product Sandbox.
• Section C lists factors the Bureau intends to consider in deciding whether to grant an application for admission to the BCFP Product Sandbox.
• Section D describes procedures for granting admission to the BCFP Product Sandbox.
• Section E describes procedures for granting extensions of participation in the BCFP Product Sandbox.
• Section F describes how the Bureau intends to coordinate with other regulators with respect to the BCFP Product Sandbox.
• Section G describes Bureau disclosure of information about the BCFP Product Sandbox.
An approval under Part II is relief provided by the Bureau to a particular entity or entities, based on particular facts and circumstances, under one or more of three statutory safe harbor provisions.
By operation of the applicable statutory provision(s), the recipient would have a “safe harbor” from liability under the applicable statute(s) to the fullest extent permitted by these provisions as to any act done or omitted in good faith in conformity with the approval;
An exemption under Part II is relief provided to a particular entity or entities, based on particular facts and circumstances, through which the Bureau exercises its authority to grant exemptions by order (i) from statutory provisions (as well as provisions of regulations implementing the statute in question) under statutory exemption-by-order provisions (statutory exemptions);
Where the Bureau provides such an exemption to a recipient(s), the recipient(s) would be immune from enforcement actions by any Federal or State authorities, as well as from lawsuits brought by private parties, based on the relevant statutory or regulatory provisions and on the recipient's (or recipients') offering or providing the described aspects of the product or service.
The no-action relief available under Part II is substantially the same as the no-action relief available under Part I, including not having a limited duration.
An application for admission to the BCFP Product Sandbox should include the following:
1. The identity of the entity or entities applying for admission to the BCFP Product Sandbox;
2. A description of the consumer financial product or service to be offered or provided within the BCFP Product Sandbox, including (a) how the product or service functions, and the terms on which it will be offered; and (b) the manner in which it is offered or provided to consumers, including any consumer disclosures;
3. The requested duration of participation in the BCFP Product Sandbox,
4. An explanation of the potential consumer benefits of the product or service and/or the manner in which it is offered or provided, and suggested metrics for evaluating whether such benefits are realized, such as consumer utilization numbers;
5. An explanation of the potential consumer risks posed by the product or service and/or the manner in which it is offered or provided, and how the applicant(s) intends to mitigate such risks, including any plans for addressing unanticipated consumer harms and the amount of resources available to provide restitution for material, quantifiable, economic harm to consumers caused by the applicant's (or applicants') offering or providing the product or service;
6. An identification of the statutory and regulatory provisions from which the applicant(s) seeks relief, the type of relief sought (approval, exemption, and/or no-action relief), and an identification of the potential uncertainty, ambiguity or barrier that such relief would address;
7. A description of data the applicant(s) possesses and/or intends to develop pertaining to the impact of the product or service on consumers that will be shared with the Bureau if the application is granted,
8. If an applicant(s) wishes to request confidential treatment under the Freedom of Information Act,
9. If an applicant(s) wishes the Bureau to coordinate with other regulators, the applicant(s) should identify those regulators, including but not limited to those that have been contacted about
The Bureau invites applications from trade associations, service providers,
A trade association, service provider, or other third-party applicant should endeavor to submit a complete application. However, if a third-party applicant is unable to submit a complete application,
Applications may be submitted via email to:
In deciding whether to grant an application for admission to the BCFP Product Sandbox,
The Bureau intends to grant or deny an application within 60 days of notifying the applicant that the Bureau has deemed the application to be complete.
When the Bureau decides to grant an application for admission to the BCFP Product Sandbox, it intends to provide the recipient(s) with a document entitled: BCFP Product Sandbox Participation Terms and Conditions (Terms and Conditions document), that sets forth the terms and conditions of the recipient's (or recipients') participation in the BCFP Product Sandbox, including the types and scope of the relief provided to the recipient(s) during its participation in the Sandbox. The Terms and Conditions document will be signed by the Assistant Director of the Office of Innovation or other members of the Office of Innovation, duly authorized by the Bureau and by an officer of each recipient.
1. Identify the recipient entity or entities;
2. Specify the subject matter scope of the document,
3. State that the document is limited to the recipient's (or recipients') offering or providing the described aspects of the product or service, and that it does not apply to the recipient's (or recipients') offering or providing different aspects of the product or service;
4. State that the document is limited to the recipient(s), and that it does not apply to any other persons or entities;
5. Require the recipient(s) to report information about the effects of offering or providing the described aspects of the product or service on complaint patterns, default rates, or similar metrics that will enable to the Bureau to determine if doing so is causing material, tangible harm to consumers.
6. Include a commitment by the recipient(s) to compensate consumers for material, quantifiable, economic harm caused by the recipient's (or recipients') offering or providing the described aspects of the product or service within the BCFP Product Sandbox;
7. Specify any other limitations or conditions, such as the duration of the recipient's (or recipients') participation in the BCFP Product Sandbox,
8. (a) State that, subject to good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of the document, (i) the Bureau approves the recipient's (or recipients') offering or providing the described aspects of the product or service, and/or (ii) the Bureau exempts the recipient(s) from complying with or deems it to be in compliance with specified statutory or regulatory provisions in connection with its offering or providing the described aspects of the product or service; and (b) specify the legal authority
9. State that, subject to good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of the document, and in the exercise of its discretion, the Bureau will not make supervisory findings or bring a supervisory or enforcement action against the recipient(s) predicated on the recipient's (or recipients') offering or providing the
10. State that, if the relief provided pursuant to the document is revoked for a reason other than the recipient's (or recipients') failure to comply in good faith with the terms and conditions of the document, the revocation is prospective only;
In certain circumstances, the Bureau may revoke admission to the BCFP Product Sandbox in whole or in part. Based, in part, on its knowledge of similar relief programs operated by other Federal agencies, the Bureau anticipates revocation to be quite rare. The Bureau expects the Terms and Condition document to specify the grounds of revocation, which the Bureau anticipates will be: (i) Failure to comply in good faith with the terms and conditions of the document; (ii) a determination by the Bureau that the recipient's (or recipients') offering or providing the described aspects of the product or service is causing material, tangible harm to consumers; and (iii) a determination by the Bureau that the legal uncertainty, ambiguity, or barrier that was the basis for the relief provided has changed as a result of a statutory change or a Supreme Court decision.
Before issuing a revocation, the Bureau will notify the recipient(s) of the grounds for revocation, and permit an opportunity to respond within a reasonable period of time. If the Bureau nonetheless determines that the recipient(s) failed to comply with the Terms and Conditions document, it will offer the recipient(s) an opportunity to cure the failure within a reasonable period of time before issuing a revocation. If the Bureau issues a revocation for failure to comply in good faith with the Terms and Conditions document, it will do so in writing and it will specify the reason(s) for its decision, including the reason(s) why any attempt to cure was inadequate. The Bureau intends to allow the recipient(s) to wind-down the offering or providing of the described aspects of the product or service during a period of six months after revocation, unless the revocation was based upon the product or service causing material, tangible harm to consumers and a wind-down period would increase such harm.
Participants in the BCFP Product Sandbox may apply for an extension of a specified period of time based upon the quality and persuasiveness of the data provided to the Bureau under Section II.D. The Bureau expects to place particular weight on the extent to which the data shows that the described aspects of the product or service are benefitting consumers and/or not causing material, tangible harm to consumers. Such applications for an extension should include the proposed duration of the extension and should be submitted no later than 90 days prior to the expiration of the applicant's participation in the BCFP Product Sandbox.
Upon the presentation of persuasive data, the Bureau anticipates granting such extension applications for a period at least as long as the period of the applicant's (or applicants') original participation in the BCFP Product Sandbox. The Bureau anticipates permitting longer extensions where the Bureau is considering amending applicable regulatory requirements.
Section 1015 of the Dodd-Frank Act instructs the Bureau to coordinate with Federal agencies and State regulators, as appropriate, to promote consistent regulatory treatment of consumer financial and investment products and services.
Furthermore, the Bureau wishes to coordinate with other regulators more generally. To this end, the Bureau intends to enter into agreements whenever practicable to coordinate relief under Part II with similar forms of relief offered by State, Federal, or international regulators.
The Bureau intends to publish on its website information about the BCFP Product Sandbox. For entities admitted to the BCFP Product Sandbox pursuant to the process specified in Sections II.B, II.C, and II.D, the information is expected to include: (i) The identity of the entity or entities admitted to the BCFP Product Sandbox; (ii) the subject matter scope of its or their participation;
Public disclosure of any other information regarding admission to the BCFP Product Sandbox is governed by applicable law, including the Dodd-Frank Act,
The Bureau anticipates that much of the information submitted by applicants in their applications, and by recipients during their participation in the BCFP Product Sandbox pursuant to the Terms and Conditions document, will qualify as confidential information, which may include confidential supervisory information, and/or business information, under the Disclosure Rule.
Disclosure of information or data provided to the Bureau under the Policy to other Federal and State agencies is governed by applicable law, including the Dodd-Frank Act
To the extent the Bureau wishes to publicly disclose non-confidential information regarding the BCFP Product Sandbox, the terms of such disclosure will be included in the Terms and Conditions document specified in Section II.D. The Bureau intends to draft the document in a manner such that confidential information is not disclosed. Consistent with applicable law and its own rules, the Bureau will not seek to publicly disclose any information or data that would conflict with consumers' privacy interests.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of petition.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that we have filed a petition, submitted by Impossible Foods, Inc., proposing that the color additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of soy leghemoglobin as a color additive in plant-based, non-animal derived ground beef analogue products.
The color additive petition was filed on November 5, 2018.
For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to
Ellen Anderson, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1309.
Under section 721(d)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1)), we are giving notice that we have filed a color additive petition (CAP
The petitioner has claimed that this action is categorically excluded under 21 CFR 25.32(k) because soy leghemoglobin would be added directly to food and is intended to remain in food through ingestion by consumers and is not intended to replace macronutrients in food. In addition, the petitioner has stated that, to their knowledge, no extraordinary circumstances exist. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion applies, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion does not apply, we will request an environmental assessment and make it available for public inspection.
State Department.
Proposed rule.
The Department of State (the Department) updates and revises the rules that implement Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, consistent with a recent update to accessibility standards from the U.S. Access Board.
The Department will accept comments until February 11, 2019.
You may submit comments by the method:
•
•
Alice Kottmyer, Attorney Adviser, Office of Management, Office of the Legal Adviser, (202) 647-2318.
The Department published its rules implementing section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794d (section 508), in 2016. 81 FR 32645.
Section 508 authorizes the Access Board to establish standards for technical and functional performance criteria to ensure that information technologies are accessible and usable by persons with disabilities. In January of 2017, the Access Board published a “refresh” of its existing standards and guidelines, which updated accessibility requirements for information and communication technology (ICT) covered by section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act or section 255 of the Communications Act. The rule jointly updated and reorganized the section 508 standards and section 255 guidelines to advance accessibility, facilitate compliance, and harmonize the requirements with other standards in United States and abroad. 82 FR 5832. Federal agencies, however, need only comply with the revised 508 standards (codified at 38 CFR 1194.1 and appendices A, C, and D), whereas the revised section 255 guidelines apply exclusively to telecommunications equipment manufacturers.
In its “refresh”, the Access Board, among other things, reorganized the section 508 standards and updated terminology, such as replacing references to “electronic and information technology” with “information and communication technology”. The title of the standards was also changed from “Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards”, to “Information and Communication Technology Standards and Guidelines”.
The amendments to part 147 proposed in this notice are intended to align the Department's regulations with the Access Board's revised section 508 standards. The Department also proposes adding one new provision (§ 147.9), which provides a prohibition against intimidation or retaliation against anyone who files a complaint, furnishes information, or engages in other lawful activities in furtherance of section 508, part 147, or other regulations that implement section 508.
This Department is publishing this document as a proposed rule with a 60-day comment period.
The Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804. With this rulemaking, the Department is making changes to terminology to align its rules with those of the Access Board. The Department is aware of no monetary effect on the economy that would result from this rulemaking, nor will there be any increase in costs or prices; or any effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and import markets.
The Department of State does not consider this rule to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f). The Department of State has reviewed this rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866. The Department has determined that the benefits of this regulation,
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
The Department has reviewed the regulation in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
The Department has considered this rule in light of Executive Order 13563, dated January 18, 2011, and affirms that this regulation is consistent with the guidance therein.
This proposed rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
The regulations in 22 CFR part 147 are related to OMB Control Number 1405-0220, which is in effect. This rule does not impose new or revised information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Civil rights, Communications equipment, Computer technology, Government employees, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of State proposes to amend 22 CFR part 147 as follows:
22 U.S.C. 2651a; 29 U.S.C. 794, 794d; 36 CFR part 1194.
The Department of State adopts the definitions in E103.4 of appendix A to 36 CFR part 1194.
No person may discharge, intimidate, retaliate, threaten, coerce or otherwise discriminate against any person because such person has filed a complaint, furnished information, assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, review, hearing or any other activity related to the administration of, or exercise of authority under, or privilege secured by section 508 and the regulations in this part.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to establish the approximately 1,246 square-mile “Eastern Connecticut Highlands” viticultural area in all or portions of Hartford, New Haven, Tolland, Windham, New London, and Middlesex Counties in Connecticut. The proposed viticultural area is not within and does not overlap any other established AVA. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites comments on this proposed addition to its regulations.
Comments must be received by February 11, 2019.
Please send your comments on this notice to one of the following addresses:
•
•
•
See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing or view or obtain copies of the petition and supporting materials.
Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013, (superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of these provisions.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes the standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:
• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;
• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA;
• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.
TTB received a petition from Steven Vollweiler, president of Sharpe Hill Vineyard, proposing the establishment of the approximately 1,246-square mile “Eastern Connecticut Highlands” AVA. The proposed Eastern Connecticut Highlands AVA covers the eastern third of the State and includes all or portions of Hartford, New Haven, Tolland, Windham, New London, and Middlesex Counties. Sixteen commercially-producing vineyards covering approximately 114.75 acres are distributed throughout the proposed AVA. An additional 20.5 acres of commercial vineyards are planned for the near future. Six wineries are also within the proposed AVA, with an additional three new wineries planned for the near future. Grape varieties planted within the proposed AVA include cold-resistant varietals such as St. Croix, Traminette, Vidal, Cayuga, Frontenac, and Vignoles.
According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Eastern Connecticut Highlands AVA include its geology, topography, soils, and climate. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data pertaining to the proposed AVA contained in this document are from the petition for the proposed Eastern Connecticut Highlands AVA and its supporting exhibits.
The proposed Eastern Connecticut Highlands AVA is located in what is known and referred to as the upland areas east of the Central Valley of Connecticut. These upland areas are commonly referred to as the “eastern highlands.” The petition proposes adding “Connecticut” to the proposed AVA name in order to avoid confusion with other regions in the United States that are referred to as “eastern highlands.”
Examples of the use of the term “eastern highlands” to describe the region of the proposed AVA include an article about Connecticut's physiography that appears on the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection's web page. The article describes the region of the proposed AVA as “the Eastern Uplands or Highlands region.”
The proposed Eastern Connecticut Highlands AVA encompasses the upland region of eastern Connecticut. According to the petition, the proposed boundary closely follows certain fault lines that lie along the geologic boundaries of the uplands region. The eastern and southern proposed boundaries approximate the Lake Char Fault and the Honey Hill Fault, respectively, and the western boundary follows the Eastern Border Fault of the Mesozoic Harford Basin. Beyond these boundaries, the topography and climate differ from within the proposed AVA. The Massachusetts-Connecticut State line forms the northern boundary of the proposed AVA because the climate and elevations of the region to the north of the proposed AVA differ slightly from the climate and elevations of the proposed AVA and because the proposed “Eastern Connecticut Highlands” name does not extend into Massachusetts.
The distinguishing features of the proposed Eastern Connecticut Highlands AVA are its geology, topography, soils, and climate.
According to the petition, the varying resistance to erosion of the underlying rocks determines the topography and the physiographic provinces of Connecticut. The proposed Eastern Connecticut Highlands AVA is underlain by a Paleozoic formation generally referred to by geologists as Iapetus Terrane, named for the ancient ocean that once covered the region. The Iapetus Terrane is comprised largely of metamorphic rocks that are difficult to erode, resulting in the hills and mountains that characterize the landscape of the proposed AVA. The underlying geology also plays a major role in the formation of soils within the proposed AVA. The topography and soils of the proposed AVA will be discussed later in this document.
To the west of the proposed AVA, the region known as the Central Valley is underlain by younger, more easily eroded sandstone, shale, and basalt lava flows that have a significantly different chemical composition than the geological formations of the proposed AVA. The regions to the east and south of the proposed AVA are part of the Avalonia Terrane, which consists of older, Pre-Cambrian rocks.
The proposed Eastern Connecticut Highlands AVA is characterized by hilly-to-mountainous terrain. Elevations within the proposed AVA range from about 200 feet in the valley floors between the hills to just more than 1,000 feet at the highest elevations in the northern portion. Along the eastern and western edges of the proposed AVA, the hills that run along the Eastern Border fault and the Lake Char Fault were formed from erosion-resistant metamorphic rocks. As a result, these hills tend to have sharp ridgelines and high elevations. In the central portion of the proposed AVA, the hills formed from metamorphic rocks that were less erosion-resistant than the rocks along the eastern and western edges. As a result, the hills in the central portion of the proposed AVA are more rounded and are “closely crammed together, almost nudging each other for more space.”
By contrast, the region to the west of the proposed AVA is a broad, flat valley. Elevations within the valley range from about 150 feet to 250 feet. South of the proposed AVA, within the region known as the Coastal Slope, elevations are also generally lower than within the proposed AVA, ranging from sea level to about 400 feet. The shoreline of this coastal region consists of rocky prominences separated by coves and tidal lands that may extend several miles inland. The highlands terrain of the proposed AVA extends north into Massachusetts and east into Rhode Island, but the elevations differ in those locations. The petition states that the highlands of Massachusetts have generally higher elevations than the proposed AVA. The petition also notes that the highlands of Rhode Island diminish as one moves eastward, and the elevations become lower.
The petition states that topography affects viticulture within the proposed Eastern Connecticut Highlands AVA because topography impacts the climate of a region. Regions with higher elevations, such as the proposed AVA, generally have a colder climate than regions with lower elevations, such as the neighboring Central Valley. Additionally, regions that are closer to the coast, such as the Coastal Slope region south of the proposed AVA and the lower elevations of Rhode Island, are more significantly affected by maritime climate than higher inland regions like the proposed AVA. Temperatures affect the varietals of grapes that can be successfully grown in any given area, as will be discussed later in this document.
According to the petition, Connecticut was affected by the last Ice Age glacier, which covered all of the State with ice a mile or more thick. As the ice slowly flowed in a generally southerly direction, it scraped and eroded the underlying bedrock, which contains an abundance of mineral nutrients. Eroded debris deposited by glaciers is referred to as glacial till. Glacial till soils are generally fertile and well-suited for agriculture, including viticulture.
There are two main types of glacial till—lodgement (or basal) till, which is material deposited by glaciers as they move across the landscape, and ablation (or meltout) till, which is material deposited as a stagnant or slow moving glacier melts. The petition states that the soils of the proposed Eastern Connecticut Highlands AVA developed on lodgement till. These soils are thick sandy-to-silty loams and can range from well to poorly drained and are typically less permeable than soils formed from ablation till. According to the petition, the proposed AVA has the largest area of lodgement till soils in the State. By contrast, the Coastal Slope region of Connecticut, south of the proposed AVA, has the smallest amount of lodgement till soils. The southern and western regions of the State contain large areas of ablation soils. Soils in the Central Valley west of the proposed AVA formed in widespread glacial lake beds and are often poorly drained.
The petition also provided information on the concentrations of seven elements found in the soils of the proposed AVA and the regions to the east, south, and west that play important roles in vine nutrition: Calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, phosphorous, sulfur, and zinc. The petition states that when compared to the Central Valley, the proposed AVA
The petition notes that calcium plays a role in a vine's ability to uptake iron, and too much calcium can inhibit iron uptake. Iron is necessary for plants, including grapevines, to undertake chlorophyll synthesis, which allows for the production of nutrients needed for grapevine growth.
Finally, the petition included the following table listing the most common soil series of the proposed AVA, the Central Valley to the west, and the Avalon Terrane to the south and east. The table shows that the proposed AVA shares some of the same soils as the regions to the south and east but contains none of the soils found in the region to the west. The petition states that the greater difference in soils series between the proposed AVA and the Central Valley is due to the greater differences in the underlying geology. The proposed AVA and the regions to the east and south have similar underlying geologic structures, but the slight chemical differences contribute to the slight differences in soil series.
The petition included information on the average annual temperatures, growing degree days (GDDs)
The data shows that the proposed AVA has average annual temperatures that are generally similar to the surrounding locations. However, this data also shows more pronounced differences in other climate measurements. When compared to the region to the north, the proposed AVA has significantly higher GDD accumulations than all three northern locations, indicating warmer growing season temperatures. The proposed AVA also has a generally shorter growing season than two of the northern locations, as indicated by the later last-spring-frost date and earlier first-fall-frost date for the proposed AVA. Compared to the regions to the south and east, the proposed AVA has lower GDD accumulations than two of the locations. The proposed AVA also has a shorter growing season than all four of the southern and eastern comparison locations, which are closer to the Long Island Sound and thus benefit from temperature-moderating marine breezes. Finally, compared to the Central Valley region to the west, the proposed AVA has lower GDD accumulations and a shorter growing season than both western comparison locations.
The petition states that the GDD accumulations within the proposed Eastern Connecticut Highlands AVA and each of the surrounding regions are sufficient to ripen most
In summary, the geology, topography, soils, and climate of the proposed Eastern Connecticut Highlands AVA distinguish it from the surrounding regions. The proposed AVA is a region of hills and mountains with underlying geological features that are resistant to erosion. To the west of the proposed AVA in the Central Valley, the topography is characterized by a broad, flat plain with underlying geological features that are easily eroded. North of the proposed AVA, the elevations are generally higher. To the east and south, the underlying geological features are older, and the elevation of the topography gradually descends to the coast.
The soils of the proposed AVA developed on the largest area of lodgement till in the State and consist of thick sandy-to-silty loams. The regions to the east and south of the proposed AVA share some of the same soil series of the proposed AVA, but the AVA has lower potassium levels and higher levels of iron, magnesium, and zinc than in these regions. Additionally, the soils to the south and east of the proposed AVA contain less lodgement till. To the west of the proposed AVA, the soils developed in glacial lake beds and are of different soil series than the soils of the proposed AVA. The soils to the west of the proposed AVA also contain lower levels of calcium, iron, magnesium, and sulfur than the soils of the proposed AVA.
The climate of the proposed AVA is generally cooler than most of the surrounding regions and is suitable for growing cold-hardy hybrid varietals of grapes. The regions to the south, east, and west all have warmer lowest-recorded temperatures and earlier last-spring-frost dates than the proposed AVA, making those regions more suitable to growing
TTB concludes that the petition to establish the approximately 1,246 square-mile Eastern Connecticut Highlands AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this notice of proposed rulemaking.
See the narrative description of the boundary of the petitioned-for AVA in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this proposed rule.
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the proposed regulatory text.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in § 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See § 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.
If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, “Eastern Connecticut Highlands,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Eastern Connecticut Highlands” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin if this proposed rule is adopted as a final rule. Accordingly, the proposed part 9 regulatory text set forth in this document specifies the full name “Eastern Connecticut Highlands” as a term of viticultural significance for the proposed AVA for the purposes of part 4 of the TTB regulations.
TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on whether it should establish the proposed AVA. TTB is also interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, soils, climate, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments.
Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Eastern Connecticut Highlands AVA on wine labels that include the term “Eastern Connecticut Highlands” as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed AVA name and currently used brand names.
You may submit comments on this notice by using one of the following three methods:
•
•
•
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must reference Notice No. 179 and include your name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public disclosure. TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments, and TTB considers all comments as originals.
In your comment, please clearly state if you are commenting for yourself or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your comment must include the entity's name, as well as your name and position title. If you comment via
You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing.
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this notice, selected supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2018-0010 on the Federal e-rulemaking portal,
All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous attachments or material that the Bureau considers unsuitable for posting.
You may also view copies of this notice, all related petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments that TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Public Reading Room, 1310 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5 x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of USGS maps or other similarly-sized documents that may be included as part of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's Public Reading Room at the above address or by telephone at 202-822-9904 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments or other materials.
TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) The beginning point is on the State of Connecticut map at the intersection of State Highway 83 and the Massachusetts-Connecticut State line in Somers. From the beginning point, proceed east along the Massachusetts-Connecticut State line approximately 33 miles to the intersection of the shared
(2) Proceed southeast along Bonnette Avenue approximately 0.38 mile to its intersection with an unnamed road known locally as Sand Dam Road; then
(3) Proceed southeast along Sand Dam Road approximately 1.5 miles to its intersection with an unnamed road known locally as Thompson Road; then
(4) Proceed south along Thompson Road approximately 1,000 feet to its intersection with an unnamed road known locally as Quaddick Town Farm Road; then
(5) Proceed east then south along Quaddick Town Farm Road approximately 5.5 miles into the town of Putnam, where the road becomes known as East Putnam Road, and continuing south along East Putnam Road approximately 1 mile to its intersection with U.S. Highway 44; then
(6) Proceed west along U.S. Highway 44 approximately 1 mile to its intersection with an unnamed road known locally as Tucker Hill Road; then
(7) Proceed south along Tucker Hill Road approximately 0.38 mile to its intersection with an unnamed road known locally as Five Mile River Road; then
(8) Proceed southwest then west along Five Mile River Road 1.75 miles to its intersection with State Highway 21; then
(9) Proceed south along State Highway 21 approximately 2 miles to its intersection with State Highway 12; then
(10) Proceed south along State Highway 12 approximately 1 mile to its intersection with Five Mile River; then
(11) Proceed west along Five Mile River approximately 0.13 mile to its intersection with the highway marked on the map State Highway 52 (also known as Interstate 395); then
(12) Proceed south along State Highway 52/Interstate 395 approximately 14.5 miles to its intersection with State Highway 201; then
(13) Proceed southeast along State Highway 201 approximately 5.25 miles to its intersection with State Highway 165; then
(14) Proceed southwest along State Highway 165 approximately 10 miles to its intersection with State Highway 2; then
(15) Proceed west along State Highway 2 approximately 1 mile to its intersection with State Highway 82; then
(16) Proceed southwest, then northwest, then southwest along State Highway 82 approximately 27.72 miles to its intersection with State Highway 9; then
(17) Proceed southeast along State Highway 9 approximately 3.7 miles to its intersection with State Highway 80; then
(18) Proceed west along State Highway 80 approximately 15.7 miles to its intersection with State Highway 77; then
(19) Proceed north along State Highway 77 approximately 8.3 miles to its intersection with State Highway 17; then
(20) Proceed northeast along State Highway 17 approximately 6.8 miles to the point where it becomes concurrent with State Highway 9; then
(21) Proceed north along concurrent State Highway 17-State Highway 9 approximately 0.75 mile the point where State Highway 17 departs from State Highway 9; then
(22) Proceed east along State Highway 17 approximately 0.25 mile, crossing over the Connecticut River, to the highway's intersection with State Highway 17A; then
(23) Proceed north along State Highway 17A approximately 3 miles to its intersection with State Highway 17; then
(24) Proceed north along State Highway 17 approximately 8 miles to its intersection with State Highway 94; then
(25) Proceed east along State Highway 94 approximately 4 miles to its intersection with State Highway 83; then
(26) Proceed north along State Highway 83 approximately 25 miles, returning to the beginning point.
National Labor Relations Board.
Proposed rule; second extension of comment period.
The National Labor Relations Board (the Board) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the
The comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking published at 83 FR 46681, and first extended at 83 FR 55329, is extended. Comments must be received by the Board on or before January 14, 2019. Comments replying to the comments submitted during the initial comment period must be received by the Board on or before January 21, 2019.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is proposing to revise the existing regulations to establish a danger zone at the U.S. Naval Base Guam Telecommunication Site in the Pacific Ocean, Guam. The Navy requested establishment of a danger zone extending over the Pacific Ocean adjacent to the Finegayan Small Arms Range. Establishment of a danger zone would intermittently restrict commercial, public, and private vessels from entering or lingering in the restricted safety zone to ensure public safety during small arms training activities. This danger zone is necessary to minimize potential conflicts between local populace activities and ongoing military training in the subject area.
Written comments must be submitted on or before January 14, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number COE-2018-0005, by any of the following methods:
Mr. David Olson, Headquarters, Operations and Regulatory Community of Practice, Washington, DC at 202-761-4922 or Ms. Karen Urelius, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District, Regulatory Branch at 671-339-2108.
Pursuant to its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat 892; 33 U.S.C. 3) the Corps is proposing to revise the regulations at 33 CFR part 334 by establishing a danger zone in the Pacific Ocean. The amendment to this regulation will allow the Commanding Officer of the U.S. Naval Base Guam to restrict passage of persons, watercraft, and vessels in the waters within the danger zone during use of the Finegayan Small Arms Range. The establishment of a danger zone would intermittently restrict commercial, public, and private vessels from entering or lingering in the restricted safety zone to ensure public safety during small arms training activities at the Finegayan Small Arms Range. This danger zone will be in place as a precautionary measure to protect the public from any potential impacts in firing small arms to the west.
The proposed establishment of this danger zone was considered in the Final Mariana Islands Training and Testing/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Navy. This location is an existing range and meets all of the landside requirements of a small arms range. With limited land on the island, it is not feasible to have the firing range and safety zone completely on land.
Military and Government of Guam law enforcement agencies are required to qualify with their assigned weapon prior to executing their duties. Additionally, other military forces (ships, submarines, expeditionary forces and other combat forces) are required to qualify and maintain their qualifications on the weapons needed to further the execution of their assigned mission. These ranges are not only used by forces assigned to the island, but also deployable military forces (Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines). The Department of Defense requires frequent firing of assigned weapons to ensure proficiency in the use and operations of assigned weapons.
Currently there are two other ranges on Naval Base Guam that are being used to support weapons qualifications. However, due to the number of units required to maintain weapon qualifications, the two ranges are insufficient. Both ranges are fully booked with commands having to be placed on a waiting list for range availability.
a.
The Corps determined this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action. This regulatory action determination is based on the proposed rule governing the danger zone, which allow any vessel that needs to transit the danger zone to expeditiously transit through the danger zone when the small arms range is in use. When the range is not in use, the danger zone will be open to normal maritime traffic and to all activities, include anchoring and loitering. The proposed rule is issued with respect to a military function of the Department of Defense and the provisions of Executive Order 12866 do not apply.
b.
c.
d.
Danger zones, Navigation (water), Restricted areas, Waterways.
For the reasons set forth in the summary above, the Corps proposes to amend 33 CFR part 334 as follows:
40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3).
(a)
(b)
(2) When the range is in use, the person(s) or officer(s) in charge shall display a red flag from a conspicuous and easily-seen location along the nearby shore to signify that the range is in use and will post lookouts to ensure the safety of all vessels transiting through the area. If the range is in use at night, a strobe light shall be displayed from the same conspicuous and easily-seen location in lieu of flags. The range shall not be used when visibility is equal to or less than the maximum range of the weapons being used at the facility.
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the rescission of Michigan rule 221 from the Michigan state implementation plan (SIP). Rule 221 exempted sources that had significant net emission increases of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide from offset requirements. Michigan rescinded this rule effective November 14, 1990.
Comments must be received on or before January 14, 2019.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1092 at
Constantine Blathras, Environmental Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-0671,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act requires that the SIP include a program to provide for the “regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved.” This includes a program for permitting construction and modification of both major and minor sources that the State deems necessary to protect air quality. The State of Michigan's minor source permit to install rules are contained in Part 2 (Air Use Approval) of the Michigan Administrative Code. Changes to the Part 2 rules were submitted on November 12, 1993; May 16, 1996; April 3, 1998; September 2, 2003; March 24, 2009; and February 28, 2017. EPA approved changes to the Part 2 rules most recently in a final approval dated August 31, 2018 (83 FR 44485).
Rule 336.1221 (Construction of sources of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, or carbon monoxide in or near nonattainment areas; conditions for approval).
EPA published a proposed disapproval of the 1993, 1996, and 1996 submittals on November 9, 1999 (64 FR 61046), but never published a final disapproval. As part of that proposed disapproval, EPA conducted an evaluation of the State submittal and found that as one of the items, the State failed to rescind Michigan rule 336.1221. In that action, EPA stated, “Michigan rule 336.1221 impermissibly exempts sources that have significant net emissions increases of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide from offset requirements. MDEQ rescinded Michigan rule 336.1221 effective November 14, 1990. However, the State never submitted the rule to USEPA for rescission. Because Michigan did not submit the rescission to the USEPA for removal of the rule from the SIP, the Michigan NSR rules are not approvable at this time.”
On September 24, 2003, the State of Michigan submitted a SIP revision to EPA requesting full approval of Michigan's Clean Air Act New Source Review SIP. As part of that submittal requesting revisions to Parts 1 (General Provisions) and 2, Michigan specifically requested to rescind rule 336.1221. As part of its technical support document, Michigan stated that rule 336.1221 was rescinded from the State rules in 1990, and requests that EPA remove it from the SIP.
At the time of the 1999 proposed disapproval, the Part 2 rules also included the state's major nonattainment PTI permitting program. The major nonattainment provisions have been removed from Part 2, and are now covered by the Part 19 (New Source Review for Major Sources Impacting Nonattainment Areas) rules. The Part 19 rules were fully approved by EPA into the Michigan SIP on December 16, 2013, (78 FR 76064). The Federal nonattainment air quality permitting regulations are found in 40 CFR 51.165(a) and (b). The Federal rules found at 40 CFR 51.165(a) and (b) specify the elements necessary for approval of a State permit program for preconstruction review for nonattainment purposes under Part D of the Clean Air Act. A major source or major modification that would be located in an area designated as nonattainment and subject to the nonattainment area permitting rules must meet stringent conditions designed to ensure that the new source's emissions will be controlled to the greatest degree possible; that more than equivalent offsetting emission reductions will be obtained from existing sources; and that there will be progress toward achieving the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. EPA has found that the rules as submitted by Michigan for inclusion into its SIP are at least as stringent as the Federal rules. By rescinding rule 221 from the Michigan SIP, the Michigan SIP is meeting the Federal statutory requirements for an approvable Part 2 and Part 19 air permitting program.
EPA is proposing to approve the rescission of Michigan rule 336.1221 from the Michigan SIP.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a request submitted by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on December 12, 2017, and supplemented on August 9, 2018, as a revision to Michigan's state implementation plan (SIP). The SIP submission incorporates several revisions to Michigan's Air Pollution Control Rules entitled “Part 1—General Provisions.” The revisions include
Comments must be received on or before January 14, 2019.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0741 at
Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
On December 12, 2017, and August 9, 2018, MDEQ submitted a request to EPA to incorporate revisions to Michigan's Air Pollution Control Rules entitled Part 1—General Provisions (Part 1). The submission revises the following Michigan's Air Pollution Control rules: R 336.1101 to 1103, R 336.1106 to 1109, R 336.1112 to 1116, and R 336.1118 to 1123. The revisions are primarily administrative changes.
In the August 9, 2018, submission, MDEQ rescinded its request to modify Part 1 for the following definitions: R336.1101(a) “Act,” R336.1101(h) “Air pollution,” R336.1101(q) “Aqueous based parts washer,” and R336.1103(aa) “Cold cleaner.”
Part 1 is a compilation of the definitions used in Michigan's rules. The revisions to Part 1 include a range of administrative changes, from grammatical corrections to language updates. Examples of these revisions include changing terminology such as “which” to “that,” or “commission” to “department.”
MDEQ revised the language in several rules to be consistent with rule R 336.1902, namely, requiring all of the “Adoption by reference” for various test methods be located in R 336.1902. For example, the definitions of “Heavy liquids,” “PM-10,” “PM 2.5,” “Reid vapor pressure,” “True vapor pressure,” and “Waxy, heavy pour crude oil,” the revised rule language shows that the applicable test method adopted by reference is in R 336.1902.
In rule R 336.1122(f) MDEQ updated the definition of “Volatile organic compound” (VOC) to reflect revisions made to the Federal definition at 40 CFR 51.100(s). MDEQ amended the list of compounds excluded from the definition of VOC to add the following six compounds: (1.) HCF
Last, other modifications to Part 1 include the deletion and addition of several definitions. MDEQ revised Part 1 to remove definitions that are unclear, incorrect, redundant, or no longer used in Michigan's rules. MDEQ removed “Allowed emissions,” “Federal land manager,” “Linearized multistage computer model,” “Offset ratio,” and “Very large precipitator.” In like manner, MDEQ revised Part 1 by adding the following definitions: “Adhesion prime,” “Air pollution control equipment,” “Applicant,” “Federally enforceable,” “Field gas,” “Field testing,” “Flexible coating,” and “Fog coat,” “Organic resin,” “Secondary emissions,” “Significant,” “Stencil coat,” “Styrene devolatilizer unit,” “Styrene recovery unit,” “Synthetic natural gas,” “Synthetic organic chemical and polymer manufacturing plant,” “Synthetic organic chemical and polymer manufacturing process unit,” “Used oil,” and “Wayne county permit.”
EPA finds these changes are acceptable and thus is proposing their approval into the Michigan SIP.
In rule R 336.1103, MDEQ requested the removal of (pp) from the definition of “Creditable.” EPA is taking no action to remove this definition from Michigan's SIP because EPA already removed the definition from Part 1 in a previous rulemaking. S
MDEQ amended this rule by adding (c) for the definition “Secondary risk screening level,” and (q) for the definition “State-only enforceable.” Secondary risk screening level means “the concentration of a possible, probable, or known human carcinogen in ambient air which has been calculated, for regulatory purposes, according to the risk assessment procedures in R 336.1229(1), to produce an estimated upper-bound lifetime cancer risk of 1 in 100,000.” State-only enforceable means “that the limitation or condition is derived solely from the act and the air pollution control rules and is not federally enforceable. State-only enforceable requirements include R 336.1224, R 336.1225, R 336.1901, any permit requirement established solely pursuant to R 366.1201(1)(b), or any other regulation that is enforceable
In rule 336.1120(f), “`Toxic air contaminant' or `TAC'” is defined as “any air contaminant for which there is no National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and which is or may become harmful to public health or the environment when present in the outdoor atmosphere in sufficient quantities and duration.” This definition includes a list of exempt substances that are not considered TACs. MDEQ amended the list of exempt substances to add the following: “animal or plant materials, including extracts and concentrates thereof, used as ingredients in food products or dietary supplements in accordance with applicable regulations of the United States Food and Drug Administration.” EPA is taking no action on this amendment to rule R 336.1120(f).
MDEQ revised Part 1 to add the following definitions: R 336.1115(d) for “`Oral reference dose' or `RfD',” R 336.1119(x) for “Sufficient evidence,” and R 336.1123(c) for “Weight of evidence.” EPA is taking no action on these definitions.
EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to Part 1 discussed above because the revisions meet all applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA), consistent with section 110(k)(3) of the CAA. Furthermore, MDEQ has shown that the revisions to Part 1 do not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable CAA requirement, consistent with section 110(l) of the CAA.
Under Section 110(l) of the CAA, EPA shall not approve a SIP revision if it would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171 of the CAA) or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The proposed SIP revision would not interfere with any applicable CAA requirements based on technical analysis submitted by MDEQ. Part 1 rules are definitions and are not meant to affect any sources. The changes to the definitions in Part 1 rules will have no effect on actual or allowable emissions as they only clarify words and phrases within other rules.
MDEQ has shown there is no impact of revising Part 1 rule that would hinder Michigan's ability to maintain and meet the NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide. Therefore, these revisions to Part 1 are approvable as they are merely administrative changes. The revisions will not increase any emissions to the atmosphere because they do not impact on any source applicability or emissions.
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Michigan's Part 1 Rule submitted by MDEQ on December 12, 2017, and supplemented on August 9, 2018, as a revision to the Michigan SIP.
Michigan requested that EPA approve the following rules: R 336.1101 Definitions; A (except for (a) Act, (h) Air pollution, and (q) Aqueous based parts washer), R 336.1102 Definitions: B, R 336.1103 Definitions C (except for (aa) Cold cleaner), R 336.1106 Definitions; F, R 336.1107 Definitions; G, R 336.1108 Definitions; H, R 336.1109 Definitions; I, R 336.1112 Definitions; L, R 336.1113 Definitions; M, R 336.1114 Definitions; N, R 336.1115 Definitions; O (except for (d) “`Oral reference dose' or `RfD'”), R 336.1116 Definitions; P, R 336.1118 Definitions; R, R 336.1119 Definitions; S (except for (c) Secondary risk screening level, (q) State-only enforceable, and (x) Sufficient evidence), R 336.1120 Definitions; T (except for (f) “`Toxic air contaminant' or `TAC'”), R 336.1121 Definitions; U, R 336.1122 Definitions; V, R 336.1123 Definitions; W (except for (c) Weight of evidence). We are also proposing approval of a revision removing the following definitions from Part 1: “Allowed emissions,” “Federal land manager,” “Linearized multistage computer model,” “Offset ratio,” and “Very large precipitator.”
EPA is not taking any action on R 336.1103(pp) “Creditable,” R 336.1115(d) “`Oral reference dose' or `RfD',” 336.1119(c) “Secondary risk screening level,” R 336.1119(q) “State-only enforceable,” R 336.1119(x) “Sufficient evidence,” R 336.1120(f) “`Toxic air contaminant' or `TAC',” and R 336.1123(c) “Weight of evidence.”
In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA proposes to incorporate by reference Michigan Administrative Code R 336.1101 Definitions; A (except for (a) Act, (h) Air pollution, and (q) Aqueous based parts washer), R 336.1102 Definitions: B, R 336.1103 Definitions C (except for (aa) Cold cleaner), R 336.1106 Definitions; F, R 336.1107 Definitions; G, R 336.1108 Definitions; H, R 336.1109 Definitions I, R 336.1112 Definitions; L, R 336.1113 Definitions; M, R 336.1114 Definitions; N, R 336.1115 Definitions; O (except for (d) “`Oral reference dose' or `RfD'”), R 336.1116 Definitions; P, R 336.1118 Definitions; R, R 336.1119 Definitions; S (except for (c) Secondary risk screening level, (q) State-only enforceable, and (x) Sufficient evidence), R 336.1120 Definitions; T (except for (f) “`Toxic air contaminant' or `TAC'”), R 336.1121 Definitions; U, R 336.1122 Definitions; V, R 336.1123 Definitions; W (except for (c) Weight of evidence), effective December 20, 2016. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to establish a federal Clean Water Act (CWA) selenium water quality criterion applicable to California that protects aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife in the fresh waters of California. In 2016, the EPA published a revised recommended aquatic life selenium criterion for freshwater based on the latest scientific knowledge. The EPA is proposing to amend the California Toxics Rule to include a revised statewide chronic selenium water quality criterion for California fresh waters to protect aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife which builds upon the science in the EPA's 2016
Julianne McLaughlin, Office of Water, Standards and Health Protection Division (4305T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-2542; email address:
This proposed rule is organized as follows:
Entities such as industries, stormwater management districts, or publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) that directly or indirectly discharge selenium to the fresh waters of California could be indirectly affected by this rulemaking because federal water quality standards (WQS) promulgated by the EPA would apply to CWA regulatory programs, such as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting. Citizens concerned with water quality in California could also be interested in this rulemaking. Categories and entities that could be affected include the following:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities that could be affected by this action. Any parties or entities who depend upon or contribute to the water quality of California waters where the freshwater criterion would apply could be indirectly affected by this proposed rule. To determine whether your facility or activities could be affected by this action, you should carefully examine this proposed rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
CWA section 101(a)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)) establishes a national goal, wherever attainable, of “water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water . . .” In this proposal, the relevant goals are the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
CWA section 303(c) (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)) directs states to adopt WQS for their waters subject to the CWA. CWA section 303(c)(2)(A)
States are required to review applicable WQS at least once every three years and, if appropriate, revise or adopt new WQS (CWA section 303(c)(1)
Under CWA section 304(a), the EPA periodically publishes criteria recommendations for states to consider when adopting water quality criteria for particular pollutants to meet the CWA section 101(a)(2) goals. In establishing numeric criteria, states should adopt water quality criteria based on the EPA's CWA section 304(a) criteria, section 304(a) criteria modified to reflect site-specific conditions, or other scientifically defensible methods (40 CFR 131.11(b)(1)). CWA section 303(c)(2)(B)
On December 22, 1992, the EPA promulgated
The selenium criteria in the NTR were based on the EPA's CWA section 304(a) recommended criteria values that existed at the time. These recommendations are documented in the EPA's
The EPA derived the 1987 freshwater aquatic life recommended criteria values for selenium from observed impacts on fish populations at a contaminated lake, Belews Lake, in North Carolina. The lake, a cooling water reservoir, had been affected by selenium loads from a coal-fired power plant. Since aquatic life was exposed to selenium from both the water column and diet, the criteria reflect both types of exposure in Belews Lake. The EPA derived the 1987 saltwater aquatic life recommended criteria values for selenium using data from lab studies. The EPA calculated the criteria in accordance with the EPA's
In the NTR, the EPA promulgated acute and chronic selenium criteria for the San Francisco Bay and Delta based on the 1987 freshwater recommended criteria values for selenium, even though the San Francisco Bay and Delta are marine and estuarine waters. The EPA used the more stringent freshwater values because of a concern that the saltwater criteria were not sufficiently protective “based on substantial evidence that there are high levels of selenium bioaccumulation in San Francisco Bay and the saltwater criteria fail to account for food chain effects” and “utilization of the saltwater criteria for selenium in the San Francisco Bay/Delta would be inappropriate.” (57 FR 60898).
Since the NTR promulgation, the EPA has revised the 1987 CWA section 304(a) recommended criteria for selenium to better account for bioaccumulation through the food chain in different ecosystems. The EPA recently published a revised CWA section 304(a) freshwater recommended criterion for selenium:
The EPA considered the methodology and information used to derive the 2016 CWA section 304(a) recommended selenium criterion, along with additional information specific to aquatic-dependent wildlife in California, in developing a revised selenium criterion for the fresh waters of California in this proposed rule.
On May 18, 2000, the EPA promulgated
As required by section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531
Because a distinct separation generally does not exist between freshwater and saltwater aquatic communities, the EPA further established the following rule in the CTR
In addition to the NTR and CTR acute and chronic criteria for selenium discussed in the preceding paragraphs, California had also adopted site-specific acute and chronic criteria (objectives) in the lower San Joaquin River area. In 1990, prior to the NTR, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) adopted, and the EPA approved, an acute selenium objective of 12 µg/L maximum concentration for the San Joaquin River, mouth of Merced River to Vernalis, and a chronic site-specific objective for the Grassland Water District, the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge, and the Los Banos State Wildlife Refuge of 2 µg/L monthly mean. Therefore, the State acute criterion is effective for the San Joaquin River, mouth of Merced River to Vernalis.
In addition, the EPA did not promulgate a chronic criterion for the Grassland Water District, the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge, and the Los Banos State Wildlife Refuge in the CTR. The CVRWQCB subsequently amended its Basin Plan, to apply the chronic 2 µg/L monthly mean selenium objective (and an acute 20 µg/L maximum concentration objective) only to “Salt Slough and constructed and reconstructed water supply channels in the Grassland watershed listed in Appendix 40 [of the CVRWQCB Basin Plan]” (The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Fourth Edition, July 2016). The EPA approved this change to California's WQS under CWA section 303(c) in a letter dated May 24, 2000. The Basin Plan amendment also included a chronic site-specific objective of 5 µg/L (4-day average) for Mud Slough (north) and for the San Joaquin River from Sack Dam to Vernalis, and an acute objective of 20 µg/L for Mud Slough (north) and the San Joaquin River from Sack Dam to the mouth of the Merced River, to be consistent with the previously promulgated criteria in the NTR.
This proposed rule does not apply to the San Joaquin River from Sack Dam to Vernalis, Mud Slough, or Salt Slough because they have applicable selenium criteria from the NTR and/or approved CVRWQCB site-specific criteria (objectives). This proposed rule also does not apply to the constructed and reconstructed water supply channels in the Grassland watershed listed in Appendix 40 of the CVRWQCB's Basin Plan. The CVRWQCB's Staff Report for the Basin Plan amendment indicates that the existing chronic 2 µg/L monthly mean objective is intended to protect both aquatic life and waterfowl from the toxic effects of selenium. This proposed rule does apply the revised chronic criterion to the waters of the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge and the Los Banos State Wildlife Refuge to protect aquatic life and wildlife from short-term and long-term exposures of selenium.
The proposed rule also does not apply to surface waters that are tributaries to the Salton Sea. The Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted, and the EPA approved on May 29, 2000, site-specific selenium water quality objectives “for all surface waters that are tributaries to the Salton Sea.” The site-specific objectives consist of an acute objective of 20 µg/L one-hour average and a chronic objective of 5 µg/L four-day average (The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Colorado River Basin Region, August 2017).
The State of California has nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards), each located in and overseeing different areas of the State. Each Regional Board has a regional water quality control plan (Basin Plan) that sets forth the EPA-approved designated (beneficial) uses for the waterbodies it oversees. Once the EPA finalizes the proposed criterion, the criterion becomes the applicable CWA-effective criterion for CWA implementation purposes by each of the Regional Boards.
In 2013, two organizations filed a legal complaint against the EPA in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint was based in part on the fact that the EPA had previously determined, in the proposed CTR, that an acute criterion was necessary to implement section 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA (62 FR 42160, August 5, 1997) and the work to update the reserved
Under the terms of the consent decree, the EPA committed to proposing selenium criteria for California fresh waters covered by the original CTR to protect aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife by November 30, 2018. The consent decree also requires that the EPA request initiation of any necessary ESA section 7(a)(2) consultation with the Services on the proposed selenium criteria no later than nine months after the date the EPA proposes the criteria. Further, under the consent decree, the EPA is required to finalize its proposal of selenium criteria within six months of the later of either making a “no effect” determination, receiving written concurrence from the Services, or concluding formal consultation with the Services. In the event that the EPA approves selenium criteria for the protection of aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife submitted by California for all or any portion of fresh waters in the rest of California (
Selenium is an element that occurs naturally in sediments of marine origin and enters the aquatic environment when rainwater comes into contact with deposits. Selenium is mobilized through anthropogenic activities such as agriculture irrigation, mining, and petroleum refining. It also comes into contact with the environment due to releases from holding ponds associated with mining. Selenium is emitted from power plants that burn coal or oil, selenium refineries, smelters, milling operations, and end-product manufacturers (
Selenium is an essential micronutrient and low levels of selenium in the diet are required for normal cellular function in almost all animals. However, selenium at amounts not much above the required nutritional levels can have toxic effects on aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife, making it one of the most toxic of the biologically essential elements. Egg-laying vertebrates have a lower tolerance than do mammals, and the transition from levels of selenium that are biologically essential to those that are toxic for these species occurs across a relatively narrow range of exposure concentrations. (see
Scientific studies
Selenium is found in the upper Cretaceous and Tertiary marine and sedimentary deposits that form the California Coast Ranges and inland Central Valley basin. Sedimentary rocks, particularly shales, have the highest naturally occurring selenium content and the natural weathering of geologic strata containing selenium can lead to selenium leaching into groundwater and surface water. Two major categories of anthropogenic activities are known to cause increased selenium mobilization and introduction into aquatic systems. The first is human disturbances to the geological sedimentary deposits; the second is irrigation of selenium-rich soils. Additional sources include five oil refineries along the San Francisco Bay, which are not included in the scope of this proposal.
In California, areas with Tertiary and Cretaceous marine sedimentary deposits are known to have elevated selenium. Watersheds in these areas may have elevated selenium levels in water, especially if human disturbances to the geological sedimentary deposits in these areas are high. For instance, human disturbances have included expanding the width and depth of open drainage channels for flood control purposes in agricultural and urbanized areas and conducting construction activities in the upland hills that contain marine shales. These activities have disrupted and exposed the underlying selenium-bearing marine sedimentary deposits subjecting them to erosion, weathering, and transport to downslope areas in the watershed.
Irrigation of selenium-rich soils for crop production in arid and semi-arid regions of California can mobilize selenium and move it off-site in drainage water that has leached through soil. Where deposits of Cretaceous marine shales occur, they can weather to produce high selenium soils. In semi-arid areas of California, irrigation water applied to soils containing soluble selenium can leach selenium. The excess water (from tile drains to irrigation return flow) containing selenium can be discharged into basins, ponds, or streams. For example,
In 2016, the EPA updated its CWA section 304(a) recommendation for a chronic aquatic life criterion for selenium for freshwater, based on the latest scientific knowledge on selenium toxicity and bioaccumulation (
This chronic freshwater selenium criterion will apply to California waters in a manner consistent with the CTR. The freshwater and saltwater aquatic life criteria listed in the CTR apply as follows: (1) The freshwater criteria apply at salinities of 1 part per thousand and below at locations where this occurs 95% or more of the time; (2) saltwater criteria apply at salinities of 10 parts per thousand and above at locations where this occurs 95% more of the time; and (3) at salinities between 1 and 10 parts per thousand the more stringent of the two apply.
The proposed criterion would establish levels of selenium that protect California's aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife designated (beneficial) uses for fresh waters of California consistent with California's implementation of the CTR. California's applicable designated uses for the protection of aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife are listed in Table 2.
As noted above, as part of the prior CTR rulemaking, the EPA invoked its authority under CWA section 303(c)(4)(B) when it proposed acute and chronic selenium criteria for fresh waters in California not subject to numeric criteria. The basis for that 303(c)(4)(B) determination was California's lack of numeric criteria, including selenium criteria as required by CWA section 303(c)(2)(B), which directs states to adopt numeric criteria for those toxic pollutants for which the EPA has published CWA 304(a) recommended criteria. In 1997, the EPA proposed acute and chronic aquatic life criteria for selenium based on the EPA's then-current CWA 304(a) recommended criteria. Through the course of that rulemaking, the EPA consulted with the Services pursuant to section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act. As part of that consultation process, the EPA committed to reserving (not promulgating) the proposed acute criterion. Because the EPA did not finalize the proposed acute criterion, nor did it reconsider the accompanying section 303(c)(4)(B) determination, the EPA remained subject to a statutory duty to promulgate an acute selenium criterion for California. The EPA did promulgate chronic selenium criteria in 2000, but also committed to proposing revised chronic criteria by 2003. The Services incorporated the EPA's commitments as Terms and Conditions in the final biological opinion on the effects of the final promulgation of the CTR.
Today's proposal of a revised chronic selenium criterion is necessary to complete actions initiated pursuant to the Administrator's 1997 and 2000 CTR determinations. The EPA is proposing a revised numeric selenium criterion, to comply with CWA section 303(c)(2)(B). The EPA is proposing a chronic criterion for California based on the EPA's current CWA 304(a) recommended criterion for selenium, which only includes a chronic criterion. The current science shows that an acute criterion is not necessary to protect from the lethal effects of selenium if a protective chronic criterion is in place, which by definition protects against
Water quality criteria establish the maximum allowable pollutant level that is protective of the designated uses of a water body. States adopt or, as in this case, the EPA may promulgate criteria as part of WQS. Under the CWA, WQS are used to derive water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) in permits for point source dischargers, thereby limiting the amount of pollutants that may be discharged into a water body to maintain its designated uses. The EPA is proposing a selenium water quality criterion for California comprised of criterion elements of fish tissue, bird tissue, and a performance-based approach to be used by California to translate the tissue criterion elements into protective water column elements on a site-specific basis. The EPA is proposing selenium fish and bird tissue elements because they reflect biological uptake through diet, the predominant pathway for selenium toxicity, and because they are most predictive of the observed biological endpoint of concern: Reproductive toxicity.
The EPA is proposing the freshwater selenium criterion in California that is depicted in Table 3. The EPA is proposing its recommended 2016 CWA section 304(a) selenium criterion for freshwater with the addition of a bird tissue criterion element and the replacement of the 304(a) selenium monthly average exposure water column criterion element with a performance-based approach
The EPA is proposing the following criterion:
As part of the proposed criterion depicted in Table 3, the EPA is including a methodology, incorporated by reference, to translate the fish tissue criterion elements' concentrations and the bird tissue criterion element's concentration into site-specific water column concentrations. This is considered a
The mechanistic modeling approach uses scientific knowledge of the physical and chemical processes underlying bioaccumulation to establish a relationship between the concentrations of selenium in the water column and the concentration of selenium in the tissue of aquatic and aquatic-dependent organisms. The mechanistic modeling approach enables formulation of site-specific models of trophic transfer of selenium through aquatic food webs and translation of the tissue elements into an equivalent site-specific water column selenium element. It is also the approach used to develop the 2016 CWA 304(a) recommended selenium criterion water column elements.
The empirical BAF approach establishes a site-specific relationship between water column selenium concentrations and fish (or bird) tissue selenium concentrations by measuring both directly and using the relationship between them to determine a site-specific water column criterion element.
If, after soliciting comment, the EPA finalizes a selenium criterion that includes the proposed performance-based approach as part of the federal promulgation, each resulting site-specific water column criterion element would be applicable for CWA purposes, without the need for EPA approval under CWA section 303(c). Importantly, for public transparency, the EPA recommends that California maintain a list of the resulting site-specific water column criterion elements and the underlying data used for their respective derivation on their publicly accessible website.
The proposed chronic selenium criterion applies to the entire aquatic community, including fish, amphibians, invertebrates, and aquatic-dependent wildlife. Based on the analysis in the accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD) to this proposed rule (
Although selenium may cause acute toxicity at high concentrations,
The EPA solicits comment on the
Additionally, the EPA is soliciting public comment on an alternative to the proposed criterion whereby the criterion would be expressed in the same manner as in this proposed rule (same bird tissue, fish tissue, and intermittent exposure criterion elements as presented in Table 3), however, in addition to the performance-based approach to translate site-specific water column criterion elements, the EPA would include the water column criterion elements from the Agency's 2016 CWA section 304(a) selenium criterion for freshwater: A lotic water column criterion element of 3.1 µg/L and a lentic water column criterion element of 1.5 µg/L. The derivation of these water column criterion elements is described in detail in the accompanying TSD to this proposed rule and the EPA's previous work in its 2016 CWA section 304(a) selenium criterion for freshwater. The EPA also solicits comment on an alternative that would be expressed in the same manner as the proposed criterion (same bird tissue, fish tissue, and intermittent exposure criterion elements as presented in Table 3), and include the EPA water column criterion elements from the Agency's 2016 CWA section 304(a) selenium criterion for freshwater, instead of including the performance-based approach.
The EPA also solicits comment on the criterion structure whereby rather than proposing one criterion that protects applicable aquatic life and wildlife designated uses, the rule, if finalized, would consist of two separate criteria with one intended to protect the applicable aquatic life designated uses and one intended to protect the applicable wildlife designated uses. The two separate criteria would be structured as follows: (1) An aquatic life criterion, consisting of the same fish tissue elements and performance-based approach presented in Table 3, to protect the applicable aquatic life designated uses; and (2) an aquatic-dependent wildlife criterion, consisting of the same bird tissue element and performance-based approach presented in Table 3, to protect the applicable wildlife designated uses. The EPA solicits comment on the criterion structure and whether one criterion or two separate criteria are preferred for
The EPA is proposing that for purposes of assessing attainment of the criterion, the bird tissue element be independently applicable from the fish tissue elements (
Selenium concentrations in fish and bird tissue are primarily a result of selenium bioaccumulation via dietary exposure. Because of this, fish and bird tissue concentrations in waters with new inputs of selenium may not fully represent potential effects on fish, birds, and the aquatic ecosystem. New inputs are defined as new anthropogenic activities resulting in the release of selenium into a lentic or lotic aquatic system. New inputs do not refer to seasonal variability of selenium that occurs naturally within a system (
Because tissue concentrations alone may present challenges when attempting to incorporate them directly in NPDES permits, the EPA is also proposing a performance-based approach for California to use to translate tissue elements to site-specific water column concentrations. These translated water column criterion concentrations would not prevent California from also using the tissue criterion elements for monitoring and regulation of pollutant discharges. In implementing the water quality criterion for selenium under the NPDES permits program, California may need to establish additional procedures due to the unique components of the selenium criterion. Where California uses a translated selenium water column concentration only (as opposed to using both the water column and fish tissue or bird tissue elements) for conducting reasonable potential (RP) determinations and establishing WQBELs per 40 CFR 122.44(d), existing implementation procedures used for other aquatic life protection criteria may be appropriate. However, if California also decides to use the selenium fish tissue criterion elements and bird tissue criterion element for NPDES permitting purposes, additional state WQS implementation procedures (IPs) will likely be needed to determine the need for and development of WQBELs necessary to ensure that the tissue criterion element(s) are met.
The EPA is proposing that the final EPA regulatory text will incorporate one EPA document by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the final version of the EPA's current
Pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the EPA is consulting with the FWS and NMFS concerning the EPA's rulemaking action for the selenium water quality criterion in California. The EPA will transmit to the Services documentation that supports the selenium water quality criterion in this proposed rule. As a result of this consultation, the EPA may modify some provisions of this proposed rule.
Under the CWA, Congress gave states primary responsibility for developing and adopting WQS for their waters (CWA section 303(a)-(c)). Although the EPA is proposing a selenium criterion for the protection of aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife for the fresh waters of California, California continues to have the option to adopt and submit to the EPA selenium criteria (objectives) for the State's waters consistent with CWA section 303(c) and the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131. The EPA encourages California to expeditiously adopt selenium criteria. Consistent with CWA section 303(c)(4) and the terms of the consent decree, if California adopts and submits selenium criteria for the protection of aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife, and the EPA approves such criteria before finalizing this proposed rule, the EPA would not proceed with the promulgation for those waters for which the EPA approves California's criteria. Under those circumstances, federal promulgation would no longer be necessary to meet the requirements of the Act.
If the EPA finalizes this proposed rule and California subsequently adopts and submits selenium criteria for the protection of aquatic and aquatic-dependent wildlife for California, the EPA would approve California's criteria if those criteria meet the requirements of section 303(c) of the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulation at 40 CFR part 131. If the EPA's federally-promulgated criteria are more stringent than the State's criteria, the EPA's federally-promulgated criteria are and will be the applicable water quality standard for purposes of the CWA until the Agency withdraws those federally-promulgated standards. The EPA would expeditiously undertake such a rulemaking to withdraw the federal criteria if and when California adopts and the EPA approves corresponding criteria. After the EPA's withdrawal of
The federal WQS regulation at 40 CFR part 131 provides several tools that California has available to use at its discretion when implementing or deciding how to implement these aquatic life criteria, once finalized. Among other things, the EPA's WQS regulation: (1) Specifies how states and authorized tribes establish, modify or remove designated uses, (2) specifies the requirements for establishing criteria to protect designated uses, including criteria modified to reflect site-specific conditions, (3) authorizes and provides regulatory guidelines for states and authorized tribes to adopt WQS variances that provide time to achieve the applicable WQS, and (4) allows states and authorized tribes to authorize the use of compliance schedules in NPDES permits to meet WQBELs derived from the applicable WQS. Each of these approaches are discussed in more detail in the next sections.
The EPA's proposed selenium criterion applies to fresh waters of California where the protection of aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife are designated uses. The federal regulations at 40 CFR 131.10 provide information on establishing, modifying, and removing designated uses. If California removes designated uses such that no aquatic life or aquatic-dependent wildlife uses apply to any particular water body segment affected by this rule and adopts the highest attainable use,
The regulations at 40 CFR 131.11 specify requirements for modifying water quality criteria to reflect site-specific conditions. In the context of this rulemaking, a site-specific criterion (SSC) is an alternative value to the federal selenium criterion that would be applied on an area-wide or water body-specific basis that meets the regulatory test of protecting the designated uses, being scientifically defensible, and ensuring the protection and maintenance of downstream WQS. A SSC may be more or less stringent than the otherwise applicable federal criterion. A SSC may be called for when further scientific data and analyses indicate that a different selenium concentration (
California's WQS provide sufficient authority to apply WQS variances when implementing a federally promulgated criterion for selenium, as long as such WQS variances are adopted consistent with 40 CFR 131.14 and submitted to the EPA for review and approval under CWA section 303(c). Federal regulations at 40 CFR 131.14 define a WQS variance as a time-limited designated use and criterion, for a specific pollutant or water quality parameter, that reflects the highest attainable condition during the term of the WQS variance. WQS variances adopted in accordance with 40 CFR 131.14 (including a public hearing consistent with 40 CFR 25.5) provide a flexible but defined pathway for states and authorized tribes to meet their NPDES permit obligations by allowing dischargers the time they need (as demonstrated by the state or authorized tribe) to make incremental progress toward meeting WQS that are not immediately attainable but may be in the future. When adopting a WQS variance, states and authorized tribes specify the interim requirements of the WQS variance by identifying a quantitative expression that reflects the highest attainable condition (HAC) during the term of the WQS variance, establishing the term of the WQS variance, and describing the pollutant control activities expected to occur over the specified term of the WQS variance. WQS variances help states and authorized tribes focus on improving water quality, rather than pursuing a downgrade of the underlying water quality goals through modification or removal of a designated use, as a WQS variance cannot lower currently attained water quality. WQS variances provide a legal avenue by which NPDES permit limits can be written to comply with the WQS variance rather than the underlying WQS for the term of the WQS variance. If dischargers are still unable to meet the WQBELs derived from the applicable WQS once a WQS variance term is complete, the regulation allows the state and authorized tribe to adopt a subsequent WQS variance if it is adopted consistent with 40 CFR 131.14. The EPA is proposing a criterion that applies to use designations that California has already established. California's WQS currently include the authority to use WQS variances when implementing criteria, as long as such WQS variances are adopted consistent with 40 CFR 131.14. California may use EPA-approved WQS variance procedures when adopting such WQS variances.
The EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 122.47 and 40 CFR 131.15 address how permitting authorities can use permit compliance schedules in NPDES permits if dischargers need additional time to undertake actions like facility upgrades or operation changes to meet their WQBELs based on the applicable WQS. The EPA's regulation at 40 CFR 122.47 allows permitting authorities to include compliance schedules in their NPDES permits, when appropriate and where authorized by the state or authorized tribe, in order to provide a discharger with additional time to meet its WQBELs implementing applicable WQS. The EPA's regulation at 40 CFR 131.15 requires that states and authorized tribes that choose to allow the use of NPDES permit compliance schedules adopt specific provisions authorizing their use and obtain the EPA approval under CWA section 303(c) to ensure that a decision to allow permit compliance schedules is transparent and allows for public input (80 FR 51022, August 21, 2015). The EPA's approval of the state's or authorized tribe's permit compliance schedule authorizing provision (CSAP)
California is authorized to administer the NPDES program and has adopted several mechanisms to authorize compliance schedules in NPDES permits. In 2008, California adopted a statewide CSAP that the EPA subsequently approved under CWA section 303(c), the
The proposed criterion would serve as a basis for development of new or revised NPDES permit conditions for point source dischargers and additional best management practice (BMP) controls on nonpoint sources of pollutant loadings. The EPA cannot be certain of whether a particular discharger would change their operations if this proposed criterion were finalized and the discharger were found to have reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of a WQS. Moreover, the EPA cannot anticipate how California would implement the criterion. California is authorized to administer the NPDES program and retains discretion in implementing WQS. In addition to examples laid out in Section VI—any of which would be consistent with the regulatory requirement at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(i) to ensure that State NPDES permits comply with the applicable CWA WQS—the State can calculate water column criterion elements on a site-specific basis relying on the performance-based approach. Despite this discretion, if California determines that a permit is necessary, such permit would need to comply with the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(i). Still, to best inform the public of the potential impacts of this proposed rule, the EPA made some assumptions to evaluate the potential costs associated with State implementation of the EPA's proposed criterion. The EPA chose to evaluate the expected costs associated with State implementation of the Agency's proposed selenium criterion based on available information. This analysis is documented in
For the economic analysis, the EPA assumed the baseline to be full implementation of existing water quality criteria (
For point source costs, any NPDES-permitted facility that discharges selenium could potentially incur compliance costs. The types of affected facilities could include industrial facilities and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) discharging wastewater to fresh surface waters.
To facilitate this analysis, the EPA interpreted the proposed criterion as the lentic and lotic water-column elements from the Agency's 2016 CWA section 304(a) selenium criterion for freshwater, and refer to this as the economic analysis criterion. Using the proposed performance-based approach detailed in
The EPA estimated costs to municipal, industrial, and other dischargers under the proposed criterion. The EPA used its Integrated Compliance Information System National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES) database to identify individually permitted facilities in California whose NPDES permits contain effluent limitations and/or monitoring requirements for selenium. The EPA excluded facilities that discharge to saltwater, as well as the facilities discharging to waters where SSC are in place for selenium (listed above). Based on this review, the EPA identified 110 facilities to evaluate for reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the applicable proposed criterion (
The EPA estimated costs for point source dischargers that receive more stringent limits based on the proposed criterion and existing effluent concentrations. The EPA reviewed facility permits, existing treatment systems, and available treatment technologies to develop likely compliance scenarios and associated incremental costs for each permittee to meet their proposed effluent limitations.
To estimate costs for nonpoint source controls, the EPA compared available water quality measurements for selenium against the economic analysis criterion to identify lentic and lotic fresh waters that might be incrementally impaired under the proposed criterion. Although the State of California's implementation procedures may result in different waters identified as impaired for selenium and the State may choose a different approach to achieving water quality criteria, the EPA assumed, for the purpose of its cost analysis, that nonpoint dischargers of agricultural drainage return flows to impaired waters in regions with a high percentage of irrigated cropland would need to implement BMPs to reduce irrigation drainage. To estimate the potential incremental impact of the rule on nonpoint sources, the EPA identified the incrementally impaired waters with high proportions of cropland. The EPA's estimate for incremental BMPs costs included annualized costs for implementing drip irrigation to replace a less efficient type of irrigation to reduce the return flow from agricultural areas surrounding the impaired waters. The EPA also estimated the potential administrative costs to government entities to develop TMDLs for the potentially impaired waters.
The EPA provides estimated costs to point source dischargers by type, based on capital and operation and maintenance costs, reported on an annual basis as the sum of annual O&M costs and capital costs annualized at a 3% discount rate over the 20-year life of the capital equipment. Total costs, if all controls were implemented in the first year, range from $34.1 to 50.2 million per year; when reflecting a 5-year phase-in due to NPDES permit cycle, total costs range from $31.0 to 45.7 million per year. Deferring some cost to later years reduces the total amount and is likely given the 5-year NPDES permit renewal cycle and staggered TMDL development.
The estimated costs to nonpoint sources that may result from state implementation of the proposed criterion range from $9.9 to $11.0 million per year, using a 13-year TMDL phase-in period. The EPA annualized BMP capital costs over the expected useful life of the BMPs using a 3% discount rate and added annual operation and maintenance costs to derive annual cost estimates. See the Economic Analysis for more details.
If there are incrementally impaired waters under the proposed criterion, then the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards may need to develop TMDLs for these waters, thereby incurring incremental government regulatory costs. If there is a separate TMDL for each of the 28 incrementally impaired waterbodies, and each TMDL costs between $37,000 and $40,000 to complete,
Note that, while this analysis is based on the best publicly available data, it may not fully reflect the impact of the proposed criterion. If additional monitoring data were available, or if the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards increase monitoring of ambient conditions in future assessment periods, additional impairments may be identified under the baseline and/or proposed criteria. Conversely, there may be fewer waters identified as impaired for selenium after California has fully implemented baseline activities to address sources of existing impairments for selenium or other contaminants (
Table 4 shows aggregate costs for point source controls, nonpoint source BMPs, and administrative costs for the 3% discount rate, where the total annual cost ranges from $41 million to $57 million. The 7% discount rate estimates of total annual costs range from $45 million to $61 million. See the economic analysis for full derivation.
As determined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), this action is a significant regulatory action and was submitted to OMB for review. Any changes made during OMB's review have been documented in the docket. The EPA evaluated the potential costs to NPDES dischargers associated with State implementation of the EPA's proposed criteria. This analysis,
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action. Details on the estimated costs of this proposed rule can be found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. While actions to implement these WQS could entail additional paperwork burden, this action does not directly contain any information collection, reporting, or record-keeping requirements.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The EPA-promulgated WQS are implemented through various water quality control programs including the NPDES program, which limits discharges to navigable waters except in compliance with a NPDES permit. CWA Section 301(b)(1)(C)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandates as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As these water quality criteria are not self-implementing, the action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
Under the technical requirements of Executive Order 13132, the EPA has determined that this proposed rule may not have federalism implications but believes that the consultation requirements of the Executive Order have been satisfied in any event. On several occasions over the course of February 2018 through September 2018, the EPA discussed with the California State Water Quality Control Board and several Regional Water Quality Control Boards the Agency's development of the federal rulemaking and clarified early in the process that if and when the State decided to develop and establish its own selenium standards, the EPA would instead assist the State in its process. During these discussions, the EPA explained the scientific basis for the fish and bird tissue elements of the selenium criterion and the methodologies for translating the tissue elements to water column values; the external peer review process and the comments the Agency received on the derivation of the criterion; the Agency's consideration of those comments and responses; possible alternatives for a criteria or criterion matrix; and the overall timing of the federal rulemaking effort. The EPA coordinated with the State and considered the State's initial feedback in making the Agency's decision to propose and solicit comment on the criterion matrix and the various options described in Section III. Proposed Criterion of this proposed rulemaking.
The EPA specifically solicits comments on this proposed action from state and local officials.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor does it substantially affect the relationship between the federal government and tribes, or the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA consulted with tribal officials during the development of this action. The EPA will continue to communicate with the tribes prior to its final action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. The criteria in this proposed rule would support the health and abundance of aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife in California and would, therefore, benefit all communities that rely on these ecosystems.
Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Indians—lands, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 131 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1251
(b)(1) * * *
1. The table in this paragraph (b)(1) lists all of the EPA's priority toxic pollutants whether or not criteria guidance are available. Blank spaces indicate the absence of national section 304(a) criteria guidance. Because of variations in chemical nomenclature systems, this listing of toxic pollutants does not duplicate the listing in appendix A to 40 CFR part 423-126 Priority Pollutants. The EPA has added the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry numbers, which provide a unique identification for each chemical.
2. The following chemicals have organoleptic-based criteria recommendations that are not included on this chart: Zinc, 3-methyl-4-chlorophenol.
3. Freshwater and saltwater aquatic life criteria apply as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) For waters in which the salinity is equal to or greater than 10 parts per
(iii) For waters in which the salinity is between 1 and 10 parts per thousand as defined in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section, the applicable criteria are the more stringent of the freshwater or saltwater criteria, except for selenium in waters of the San Francisco Bay upstream to and including Suisun Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta where the applicable criteria are the freshwater criteria in Column B of the NTR. However, the Regional Administrator may approve the use of the alternative freshwater or saltwater criteria if scientifically defensible information and data demonstrate that on a site-specific basis the biology of the water body is dominated by freshwater aquatic life and that freshwater criteria are more appropriate; or conversely, the biology of the water body is dominated by saltwater aquatic life and that saltwater criteria are more appropriate. Before approving any change, the EPA will publish for public comment a document proposing the change.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from the National Park Service (NPS) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to research and monitoring activities in southern Alaska over the course of five years (2019-2024). These activities include glaucous-winged gull and climate monitoring activities in Glacier Bay National Park (GLBA NP), Alaska and marine bird and mammal survey activities conducted by the Southwest Alaska Inventory and Monitoring Network (SWAN) in national parks and adjacent lands. As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is proposing regulations to govern that take and requests comments on the proposed regulations.
Comments and information must be received no later than January 14, 2019.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0059, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Gray Redding, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
A copy of NPS's application and any supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed rule and subsequent Letters of Authorization qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the request.
This proposed rule, to be issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361
We received an application from NPS requesting five-year regulations and authorization to take harbor seals and Steller sea lions. Take would occur by Level B harassment incidental to research and monitoring activities due to behavioral disturbance of pinnipeds. The regulations would be valid from 2019 to 2024. Please see “Background” below for definitions of harassment.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of small numbers of
The following provides a summary of some of the major provisions within the proposed rulemaking for NPS's research and monitoring activities in southern Alaska. We have preliminarily determined that NPS's adherence to the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures listed below would achieve the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammals. They include:
• Measures to minimize the number and intensity of incidental takes during monitoring activities and to minimize the duration of disturbances.
• Measures designed to eliminate startling reactions.
• Eliminating or altering research activities on GLBA NP beaches when pups are present, and setting limits on the frequency and duration of events during pupping season.
Paragraphs 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371 (a)(5)(A) and (D)) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s); will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant); and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity:
• That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by:
○ Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas;
○ Directly displacing subsistence users; or
○ Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and
• That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On February 6, 2018, we received an adequate and complete request from NPS for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to gull and climate monitoring activities in GLBA NP. On February 22, 2018 (83 FR 7699), we published a notice of receipt of NPS's application in the
Prior to this request for incidental take regulations and subsequent Letters of Authorization (LOA), we issued five consecutive incidental harassment authorizations (IHA) to NPS for incidental take associated with the GLBA NP ongoing gull and climate monitoring activities. NPS was first issued an IHA, valid for a period of one year, effective on September 18, 2014 (79 FR 56065), and was subsequently issued one-year IHAs for incidental take associated with the same activities, effective on March 24, 2015 (80 FR 28229), June 1, 2016 (77 FR 24471), May 20, 2017 (82 FR 24681), and February 15, 2018 (83 FR 6842). NPS has abided by all of NMFS's mitigation and monitoring requirements in previous activities for which take was authorized.
NPS is proposing to conduct two research projects within the GLBA NP in southeast Alaska: (1) Glaucous-winged gull monitoring, and (2) the maintenance of a weather station operation for long-term climate monitoring. NPS would conduct ground and vessel surveys at six study sites within GLBA NP for gull monitoring: South Marble Island, Boulder Island, Lone Island, Geikie Rock, Flapjack Island, and Tlingit Point Islet. These sites will be accessed up to five times per year. In addition, NPS is requesting permission to access Lone Island an additional three times per year for weather station maintenance and operation bringing the total number of site visits to Lone Island to eight. This includes adding one additional trip for any emergency repairs that may be needed. Researchers accessing the islands for gull monitoring and weather station operation may cause behavioral disturbance (Level B harassment) of harbor seals. NPS expects that the disturbance to harbor seals from both projects will be limited to Level B harassment.
The purpose for the above-mentioned research activities are as follows. Gull monitoring studies are mandated by a Record of Decision of a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) (NPS 2010) which states that NPS must initiate a monitoring program for glaucous-winged gulls (
NPS is applying for an LOA to conduct the SWAN marine bird and mammal multi-species nearshore surveys along the coastlines of Katmai National Park and Preserve (KATM), Kenai Fjords National Park (KEFJ), and in Kachemak Bay (KBAY) in support of long-term monitoring programs in these regions of southwest Alaska. Occasional disturbance of Steller sea lions and harbor seals may occur during surveys. Steller sea lion and harbor seal habitat coincides with surveyed nearshore transects. Please see NPS's application for established transect locations for KATM and KEFJ and proposed transect locations for KBAY. NPS expects that the disturbance will be limited to Level B harassment and will not result in serious injury or death. SWAN also seeks to foster further collaborations with NOAA and share monitoring data in the future.
The specified activity would be valid during the five-year period of validity for these proposed regulations (March 1, 2019 through February 29, 2024). Ground and vessel surveys for nesting gulls will be conducted from May through September on bird nesting islands in GLBA NP (see Figure 1 of LOA Application) and other suspected gull colonies. There will be 1-3 ground visits and 1-2 vessel surveys at each site for a maximum of five visits per site. Duration of surveys will be 30 minutes to two hours each.
Maintenance of the Lone Island weather station may begin March 1, 2019. To avoid the gull-nesting period, all maintenance and emergency repair-related site visits to this location are planned to occur between March and April during the first year, and October to April in following years, but visits could occur outside of this time period if necessary with authorization from the park Superintendent to ensure protection of park resources and values. Possible unanticipated station failures requiring emergency repair will require up to eight hours. Two planned maintenance visits will require approximately two hours per visit.
NPS's activities in the SWAN region would be valid during the five year period of validity for these proposed regulations (March 1, 2019 through February 29, 2024). Standardized surveys of marine birds are proposed in KATM and KEFJ between late June and early July and are generally conducted by two survey crews on independent small vessels (5-8 m length) traveling at speeds of 8-12 knots along randomly selected sections of coastline that represent independent transects. The two crews operate independently and do not survey the same transects. Winter surveys are conducted in March and consist of the same set of transects surveyed in the summer months. Only one region, either KATM or KEFJ, per winter season is surveyed. Regions surveyed in the winter are on a rotation. Similar annual surveys are proposed in KBAY, with summer surveys occurring in June or July and no winter survey proposed. The survey of each area takes 3-4 days to complete with both crews operating.
The proposed study sites would occur in the vicinity of the following locations: South Marble, Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, Tlinglit Point Islet, and Geikie Rock in GLBA NP in southeast Alaska (see Figure 1 of LOA application). Each of these study sites are located on the eastern side of the park situated near Geikie Inlet and all provide harbor seal habitat throughout the year, however the highest presence of seals occurs during the breeding and molting season (May to October) (Lewis
The proposed surveys will occur at two national parks, KATM and KEFJ, as well as the nearby KBAY, in southwest AK. Detailed maps of the survey transects are available in the NPS's LOA application. Transects are conducted 100 or 150 m from shore and have a total width of approximately 200 to 300 m centered on the vessel.
Gull monitoring will be conducted using a combination of ground and vessel surveys by landing at specific access points on the islands. NPS proposes to conduct: (1) Ground-based surveys at a maximum frequency of three visits per site; and (2) vessel-based surveys at a maximum frequency of two visits per site during the period of May through September.
Ground-based surveys for gull monitoring will involve two trained observers conducting complete nest counts of the gull colonies. The survey will encompass all portions of the gull colony accessible to humans and thus represent a census of the harvestable nests. GPS locations of nests and associated vegetation along with the number of live and predated eggs will be collected during at least one visit to obtain precise nest locations to characterize nesting habitat. On subsequent surveys, nest counts will be tallied on paper so observers can move through the colony more quickly and minimize disturbance. Ground surveys will be discontinued after the first hatched chick is detected to minimize disturbance and mortalities of gulls. During ground surveys, observers will also record other bird and marine mammal species in proximity to colonies.
The observers would access each island using a kayak, a 32.8 to 39.4-foot (ft) (10 to 12 meter (m)) motorboat, or a 12 ft (4 m) inflatable rowing dinghy. The landing craft's transit speed would not exceed 4 knots (kn) (4.6 miles per hour (mph)). Ground surveys generally last 30 minutes (min) to two hours (hrs) each depending on the size of the island and the number of nesting gulls. During ground surveys, Level B harassment of harbor seals can occur from either acoustic disturbance from motorboat sounds or visual disturbance from the presence of observers. Past monitoring reports show that most takes (flushes or movements greater than one meter) from ground surveys occurred as vessels approached a study site to perform a survey. Takes usually occurred while
Vessel-based surveys for gull monitoring will be conducted from the deck of a motorized vessel (10 to 12 meters) and will be used to count the number of adult and fledgling gulls that are visible from the water (Zador, 2001; Arimitsu
To conduct climate monitoring and weather station maintenance activities, Lone Island will be accessed by a 10-20 m motor vessel. Materials will be carried by hand to the weather station location. Station configuration and maintenance is typical of Remote Automated Weather Stations (RAWS) operated by land management agencies for weather and climate monitoring, fire weather observation, and other uses. The weather station consists of an 8-ft monopole and associated guy lines. In addition, there is a fuel cell and sealed 12V battery housed in a watertight enclosure that provides power to the station. Standard meteorological sensors for measuring precipitation, wind, temperature, solar radiation, and snow depth are used. Data is housed in internal memory and communicated via satellite telemetry to the Wildland Fire Management Institute where it is relayed to a variety of repositories such as the Western Regional Climate Center in near real-time. It is possible that the weather station can be accessed in a fashion that will not disturb hauled out harbor seals. However NPS is requesting authorization to ensure its ability to perform yearly maintenance of the weather station.
SWAN standardized surveys of marine birds are conducted in KATM and KEFJ between late June and early July and are generally conducted from small vessels (5-8 m length) traveling at speeds of 8-12 knots along randomly selected sections of coastline that represent independent transects. SWAN is also proposing similar surveys be implemented in KBAY in cooperation with USGS and Gulf Watch Alaska. The survey design consists of a series of transects along shorelines such that a minimum of 20 percent of an NPS park shoreline is surveyed. Transects are systematically selected beginning at a random starting point from the pool of contiguous 2.5-5 km transects that are adjacent to the mainland or islands. The transect width is 200-300 m, depending on the elevation of the observer platform, and the survey boat represents the midpoint. There are two survey teams, and each transect is surveyed by one team of three. The boat operator generally surveys the 100-150 m offshore area of the transect, while a second observer surveys the 100-150 m nearshore area. The third team member enters the observations into a laptop running software specifically designed for this type of surveying, and the third team member can assist with observations when needed. All marine birds and mammals within the 200-300 m transect swath are identified and counted. Detailed descriptions of methods and procedures can be found in the Marine Bird and Mammal Survey SOP (Bodkin 2011).
Sections 3 and 4 of the LOA application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR;
Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence within the survey areas and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow the Committee on Taxonomy (2017). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats. Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S. Alaska SARs (Muto
All marine mammal species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey areas are included in Table 1. While cetaceans, including humpback, beluga, and killer whales, may be present in nearby waters, NPS's activities are expected to result in harassment only for hauled out pinnipeds. Therefore, cetaceans are not considered further in this analysis. However, NPS does propose cetacean avoidance measures as described in the “Proposed Mitigation” section below. Finally, sea otters may be found throughout the proposed project area. However, sea otters are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are not considered further in this document.
The Steller sea lion is the largest of the eared seals, ranging along the North Pacific Rim from northern Japan to California, with centers of abundance and distribution in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands. Steller sea lions were listed as threatened range-wide under the ESA on November 26, 1990 (55 FR 49204). Subsequently, NMFS published a final rule designating critical habitat for the species as a 20 nautical mile buffer around all major haulouts and rookeries, as well as associated terrestrial, air and aquatic zones, and three large offshore foraging areas (58 FR 45269; August 27, 1993). In 1997, NMFS reclassified Steller sea lions as two distinct population segments (DPS), or stocks, based on genetic studies and other information (62 FR 24345; May 5, 1997). Steller sea lion populations that primarily occur west of 144° W (Cape Suckling, Alaska) comprise the western stock, while all others comprise the eastern stock; however, there is regular movement of both stocks across this boundary (Jemison
Steller sea lions are not known to migrate, but individuals may disperse widely outside the breeding season (late May to early July). At sea, Steller sea lions are commonly found from nearshore habitats to the continental shelf and slope. The western stock breeds on rookeries in Alaska from Prince William Sound west through the Aleutian Islands. Steller sea lions use 38 rookeries and hundreds of haulouts within their range in western Alaska (Allen and Angliss 2013). The eastern stock originates from rookeries east of Cape Suckling, Alaska, and can be found between southeast Alaska and California.
SWAN's activities all occur west of the 144° W line that splits the two Steller sea lion stocks, but there is some mixing across that boundary. Steller sea lions impacted by NPS' research and monitoring activities could belong to either stock, and it is not possible to determine which stock a Steller sea lion belongs to by simple observation. Both stocks of Steller sea lions are therefore considered in this analysis.
SWAN surveys occur in areas with known Steller sea lion haulouts and there are two rookeries in KEFJ (see application). KATM and KEFJ shorelines are both within Steller sea lion critical habitat including the aquatic zone (or buffer) that extends 37 kilometers (20 nautical miles) seaward in all directions from each rookery and major haulout. Critical habitat also includes three large offshore foraging areas: The Shelikof Strait area, the Bogoslof area, and the Seguam Pass area (58 FR 45269) with only the Shelikof Strait area relevant to this action. Steller sea lions are sometimes present in KBAY, but the area is not critical habitat. Regulations prevent approach by vessel to within three nautical miles of major rookeries (50 CFR 224.103).
The temporal and/or spatial occurrence of Steller sea lions is such that take is not expected to occur in GLBA NP research sites and researchers would not approach Steller sea lions. Steller sea lions which occur in GLBA NP are generally found on South Marble Island (see Figure 1 in the Application). No disturbance of Steller sea lions is expected from GLBA NP activities, so their presence in the area is not discussed beyond the information provided here.
A total of five Steller sea lions have been observed during the 2015, 2016, and 2017 GLBA NP gull survey seasons (climate monitoring did not take place during these years) (NPS 2015b; NPS 2016; NPS 2017). However, all Steller sea lions that were spotted were observed outside the study area. Steller sea lions are present in GLBA NP, but are not generally seen on the islands being researched. NPS has proposed mitigation, including staying at least 100 m away from all Steller sea lions (see Proposed Mitigation), which has been found to be sufficient to avoid take by Level B harassment due to Steller sea lions' tolerance of vessels and lack of response to humans from a distance.
Harbor seals are the most abundant marine mammal species found within the action area and are present year-round. Harbor seals range from Baja California north along the west coasts of Washington, Oregon, California, British Columbia, and Southeast Alaska; west through the Gulf of Alaska, Prince
Harbor seals haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial ice (Allen and Angliss, 2014). They are non-migratory; their local movements are associated with tides, weather, season, food availability, and reproduction, as well as sex and age class (Allen and Angliss, 2014; Boveng
Harbor seals of Glacier Bay range from Cape Fairweather southeast to Column Point, extending inland to Glacier Bay, Icy Strait, and from Hanus Reef south to Tenakee Inlet (Muto
Long-term monitoring of harbor seals on glacial ice has occurred in Glacier Bay since the 1970s (Mathews and Pendleton, 2006) and has shown this area to support one of the largest breeding aggregations in Alaska (Steveler, 1979; Calambokidis
Results from satellite telemetry studies suggest that harbor seals travel extensively beyond the boundaries of Glacier Bay during the post-breeding season (September-April); however, harbor seals demonstrated a high degree of inter-annual site fidelity (93 percent) to Glacier Bay the following breeding season (Womble and Gende 2013b). Spatial and temporal regulations, for vessels transiting in and near harbor seal breeding areas, and operating regulations, for vessels operating within those areas, are all aimed at reducing the impacts of human visitation.
Harbor seals from the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock can be found hauled out at four of the gull monitoring study sites (Table 2). Seal counts from gull monitoring surveys likely represent a minimum estimate due to difficulty observing marine mammals from a vessel. Counts from gull monitoring surveys are conducted during high tide so fewer seals may be present.
As alluded to, there can be greater numbers of seals on the survey islands than what is detected by the NPS during the gull surveys. Aerial survey maximum counts show that harbor seals sometimes haul out in large numbers at all four locations (see Table 2 of the application). However, harbor seals hauled out at Flapjack Island are generally on the southern end whereas the gull colony is on the northern end. Similarly, harbor seals on Boulder Island tend to haul out on the southern end while the gull colony is located and can be accessed on the northern end without causing disturbance of harbor seals. Aerial survey counts for harbor seals are conducted during low tide while ground and vessel surveys are conducted during high tide which, along with greater visibility during aerial surveys, may also contribute to the greater numbers of seals observed during the aerial surveys because there is more land available to use as a haulout during low tide.
The Prince William Sound stock includes harbor seals both within and adjacent to Prince William Sound proper from approximately Cape Fairweather to Elizabeth Island, including the KEFJ survey area. Within Prince William Sound proper, harbor seals declined in abundance by 63 percent between 1984 and 1997 (Frost et al. 1999). In Aialik Bay, adjacent to Prince William Sound proper, there has been a decline in pup production by 4.6 percent annually from 40 down to 32 pups born from 1994 to 2009 (Hoover-Miller et al. 2011). The current (2007-2011) estimate of the Prince William Sound population trend over a 5-year period is +26 seals per year with a probability that the stock is decreasing of 0.56. The presence of an increasing trend with a greater than .5 probability of decreasing is due to skewness impacting statistical estimates. This occurrence is discussed further in Muto
From 1992-1997, results from a satellite telemetry study showed Prince William Sound harbor seals tended to remain in or near Prince William Sound. Juvenile seals were occasionally found to range up to 300 to 500 km east and west into the Gulf of Alaska. In June and July, when SWAN region surveys would occur, harbor seals tended to have their smallest home range sizes, remaining nearer to their haulout than other times of year (Lowry et al. 2001).
The Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait stock includes harbor seals from approximately Elizabeth Island to Unimak Island, as well as those within Cook Inlet. Multiple harbor seal haulouts exist in KBAY and KATM (London et al, 2015; Montgomery et al 2007). This stock of harbor seals would be found in the KATM and KBAY survey areas of SWAN's activities. A multi-year study of seasonal movements and abundance of harbor seals in Cook Inlet was conducted between 2004 and 2007. This study involved multiple aerial surveys throughout the year, and the data indicated a stable population of harbor seals during the August molting period (Boveng et al. 2011). Aerial surveys along the Alaska Peninsula present greater logistical challenges and have therefore been conducted less frequently. The current (2007-2011) estimate of the Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait population trend is +313 seals per year, with a probability of 0.38 that the stock is decreasing (Muto
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The “Estimated Take” section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination” section considers the content of this section, the “Estimated Take” section, and the “Proposed Mitigation” section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.
As previously stated, acoustic and visual stimuli generated by motorboat operations and the presence of researchers have the potential to cause Level B harassment of harbor seals hauled out on Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock within GLBA NP. These same stimuli generated by motorboat operations have the potential to cause Level B harassment of harbor seals and Steller sea lions in KATM, KEFJ, and KBAY. The following discussion provides further detail on the potential visual and acoustic disturbances harbor seals and Steller sea lions may encounter during the NPS' research and monitoring activities.
Harbor seals and Steller sea lions may potentially experience behavioral disruption rising to the level of harassment from monitoring and research activities, which may include brief periods of airborne noise from research vessels and visual disturbance due to the presence and activity of the researchers both on vessels and on land during ground surveys. Disturbed pinnipeds are likely to experience any or all of these stimuli, and take may occur due to any in both isolation or combined with one another. Due to the likely constant combination of visual and acoustic stimuli resulting from the presence of vessels and researchers, we do not consider impacts from acoustic and visual stimuli separately.
Disturbances resulting from human activity can impact short- and long-term pinniped haul out behavior (Renouf
Visual stimuli resulting from the presence of researchers and vessels have the potential to result in take of harbor seals and Steller sea lions on the research islands and coasts where these pinnipeds haul out. The characteristics of these stimuli differ between the GLBA NP and SWAN activities. In SWAN's activities, vessels move at faster speeds (8-12 kn, vs 2-3 kn for GLBA NP) but are present for a short time period transiting through an area and at a consistent distance. Alternatively, while GLBA NP vessels are slower, they must approach islands where pinnipeds may be hauled out, and both the vessel and researchers will be present for a longer period of time. As noted, harbor seals and Steller sea lions can exhibit a behavioral response (
Upon the occurrence of low-severity disturbance (
Numerous studies have shown that human activity can flush pinnipeds off haulout sites and beaches (Kenyon, 1972; Allen
In 2004, Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez (2007) evaluated the efficacy of buffer zones for watercraft around harbor seal haulout sites on Yellow Island, Washington State. The authors estimated the minimum distance between the vessels and the haulout sites; categorized the vessel types; and evaluated seal responses to the disturbances. During the course of the seven-weekend study, the authors recorded 14 human-related disturbances, which were associated with stopped powerboats and kayaks. During these events, hauled out seals became noticeably active and moved into the water. The flushing occurred when stopped kayaks and powerboats were at distances as far as 453 and 1,217 ft (138 and 371 m) respectively. The authors note that the seals were unaffected by passing powerboats, even those approaching as close as 128 ft (39 m), possibly indicating that the animals had become tolerant of the brief presence of the vessels and ignored them. The authors reported that on average, the seals quickly recovered from the disturbances and returned to the haulout site in less than or equal to 60 minutes. Seal numbers did not return to pre-disturbance levels within 180 minutes of the disturbance less than one quarter of the time observed. The study concluded that the return of seal numbers to pre-disturbance levels and the relatively regular seasonal cycle in abundance throughout the area counter the idea that disturbances from powerboats may result in site abandonment (Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez, 2007). Specific reactions from past NPS gull monitoring surveys are detailed in this proposed rule's Estimated Take Section.
The probability of vessel and marine mammal interactions (
SWAN's survey vessels move at higher speeds, 8 to 12 kn, than those used in the proposed GLBA NP activities, but vessel and marine mammal interactions are still unlikely because the on board researchers are constantly scanning the water for marine mammal presence. For SWAN's activities, NMFS does not anticipate any strikes or collisions between vessels and marine mammals.
During the harbor seal breeding (May-June) and molting (August) periods, ~66 percent of seals in Glacier Bay inhabit the primary glacial ice site and ~22 percent of seals are found in and adjacent to a group of islands in the southeast portion of Glacier Bay. At the proposed GLBA NP study sites, in 2016 only one pup was observed and no pups were observed during project activities in 2017 and 2015. Pups have been observed during NPS aerial surveys during the pupping seasons (conducted during low tide), but in few numbers (see Table 4). NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed activities would result in separation of mothers and pups as pups are rarely seen at the study sites.
Based on aerial surveys between 2003 and 2005, the upper portions of KBAY had high harbor seal pup abundance during the peak pupping season (June) (Boveng at al, 2011). Proposed KBAY survey transects occur in this area of high abundance (See Figure 5 in LOA application). Boveng et al (2011) found that within Cook Inlet, June harbor seal pup abundance in an individual survey unit correlated positively with June adult abundance in that unit. Therefore, based on the anticipated presence of adult harbor seals, there are also likely pups present at sites in KATM and KEFJ during the pupping season (June). Despite the presence of pups, SWAN's research and monitoring activities are expected to result in minimal disturbance to the hauled out harbor seals of all life stages due to the distance and duration of the vessel's presence (see Proposed Mitigation), and NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed activities would result in separation of mothers and pups.
During the Steller sea lion pupping season (May-July), mothers spend time both on land with their pups and at sea foraging. Because SWAN's proposed surveys avoid transects that pass Steller sea lion rookeries, NMFS does not anticipate any impacts on hauled out Steller sea lion mothers and their pups.
Based on studies described here and previous monitoring reports from GLBA NP (Discussed further in the Estimated Take Section), we anticipate that any pinnipeds found in the vicinity of the proposed projects in both GLBA NP and the SWAN region could have short-term behavioral reactions (
NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed activities would result in the injury, serious injury, or mortality of pinnipeds. NMFS does not anticipate that vessel strikes would result from the movement of the motorboat. The proposed activities will not result in any permanent impact on habitats used by marine mammals, including prey species and foraging habitat.
NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed operations in GLBA NP or the SWAN region would result in any effects on the habitats used by the marine mammals in the proposed area, including the food sources they use (
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS's consideration of whether the number of takes is “small” and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to motorboats and the presence of NPS personnel. Based on the nature of the activity and proposed mitigation measures, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized. As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
In GLBA NP, harbor seals may be disturbed when vessels approach or researchers go ashore for the purpose of monitoring gull colonies and for the maintenance of the Lone Island weather tower. Harbor seals tend to haul out in small numbers at study sites. Using monitoring report data from 2015 to 2017 (see raw data from Tables 1 of the 2017, 2016 and 2015 Monitoring Reports, which are available online at:
During climate monitoring, which is expected to take place from March to April and October to February, seal numbers are expected to dramatically decline within the action area. Although harbor seal survey data within GLBA NP is lacking for the months of October through February, results from satellite telemetry studies suggest that harbor seals travel extensively beyond the boundaries of GLBA NP during the post-breeding season (September-April) (Womble and Gende, 2013b). Therefore, using the latest observation data from past gull monitoring activities (that occurred from May to September) is applicable when estimating take for climate monitoring activities, as it will provide the most conservative estimates.
Harbor
The availability of the affected marine mammal stocks or species for subsistence uses may be impacted by this activity, though this is not an anticipated outcome. The subsistence uses that may be affected and the potential impacts of the activity on those uses are described below. Measures included in these proposed regulations to reduce the impacts of the activity on subsistence uses are identical to those which minimize disturbance of pinnipeds as described in the
Subsistence harvest of pinnipeds is prohibited in GLBA NP, KATM, and KEFJ but it does occur in nearby areas outside park boundaries. Native communities near KBAY, including Homer, Seldovia, Nanwalek, and Port Graham harvested an estimated 32 harbor seals and 3 Steller sea lions in 2007 (Wolfe
In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, “and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking” for certain subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for ITAs to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as on subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability of implementing as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
NPS has based the mitigation measures which they propose to implement during the proposed research, on the following: (1) Protocols used during previous gull research activities as required by our previous authorizations for these activities; and (2) recommended best practices in Womble
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic and visual stimuli associated with gull and climate monitoring activities within GBLA NP, NPS has proposed to implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:
Before all surveys, the lead NPS biologist will instruct additional survey crew on appropriate conduct when in the vicinity of hauled-out marine mammals. This training shall brief survey personnel on marine mammals (inclusive of identification as needed,
If a harbor seal pup less than one week old (
The researchers would determine whether to approach an island study site based on type of animals present. Researchers would approach the island by motorboat at a speed of approximately 2 to 3 kn (2.3 to 3.4 mph). This would provide enough time for any marine mammals present to slowly enter the water without panic (flushing). The researchers would also select a pathway of approach farthest from the hauled-out harbor seals to minimize disturbance.
During pre-survey monitoring on approach to a site, NPS will observe the surrounding area for predators. If the researchers visually observe marine predators (
While onshore at study sites, the researchers would remain vigilant for hauled-out marine mammals. If marine mammals are present, the researchers would move slowly and use quiet voices to minimize disturbance to the animals present.
Although humpback whales and killer whales are not expected to be impacted by the proposed activities at GLBA NP, avoidance measures will be taken if humpback whales or killer whales are observed. Based on regulations (81 FR 62018; September 8, 2016), NPS will avoid operation of a motor vessel within
NPS has based the mitigation measures which they propose to implement at SWAN on the following: (1) Protocols used during previous authorizations for similar GLBA NP research; (2) recommended best practices in Womble
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic and visual stimuli associated with SWAN's surveys, NPS has proposed to implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:
While surveying study sites, the researchers will maintain a vessel distance of 100 to 150 m from shorelines at all times. If hauled out Steller sea lions and harbor seals are observed, the survey would maintain speed and minimum distance from the haulout to avoid startling. Additionally the survey will be attempted from a distance greater than 150 m, if conditions allow proper execution of the survey at that distance.
SWAN will avoid transects that pass known Steller sea lion rookery beaches in order to minimize disturbance of these rookeries and the surrounding critical habitat.
Although humpback and beluga whales are not expected to be impacted by SWAN's proposed work, avoidance measures will be taken if these species are observed. Based on regulations (81 FR 62018; September 8, 2016), SWAN will avoid operation of a motor vessel within
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses.
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
NPS proposes to conduct marine mammal monitoring during the SWAN activities, in order to implement the mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring and to gain a better understanding of marine mammals and their impacts to the project's activities. Because the activity is a survey of marine birds and mammals in the area, researchers will naturally be monitoring the area for pinnipeds or other marine mammals during all activities. Monitoring activities will consist of conducting and recording observations of pinnipeds within the vicinity of the proposed research areas. The monitoring notes would provide dates, transect location, species, numbers of animals present within the transect, and numbers of pinnipeds that flushed into the water.
The method for recording disturbances follows those in Mortenson (1996). For NPS' activities in the SWAN region, pinniped disturbances would be based on a three-point scale that represents an increasing response to the disturbance (Table 3). Because SWAN surveys are conducted at speed, researchers will be able to record the total number of each pinniped species observed and the number of Level 3 (Flushing) responses that occur, but not other, less noticeable disturbance responses.
SWAN does not have previous monitoring aimed specifically at recording and quantifying marine mammal disturbance. Similarity between the GLBA NP and SWAN proposed activities for this proposed rule suggest mitigation measures based on relevant portions of previous GLBA NP authorizations will provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock in the SWAN activity.
NPS proposes to conduct marine mammal monitoring during the present GLBA NP project, in order to implement the mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring and to gain a better understanding of marine mammals and their impacts to the project's activities. In addition, NPS's monitoring plan is guiding additional monitoring effort designed to answer questions of interest regarding pinniped usage of GLBA NP haulouts and the effects of NPS's activity on these local populations. The researchers will monitor the area for pinnipeds during all research activities. Monitoring activities will consist of conducting and recording observations of pinnipeds within the vicinity of the proposed research areas. The monitoring notes would provide dates, location, species, the researcher's activity, behavioral state, numbers of animals that were alert or moved greater than one meter, and numbers of pinnipeds that flushed into the water.
The method for recording disturbances follows those in Mortenson (1996). NPS activities in GLBA NP would record pinniped disturbances on a three-point scale that represents an increasing response to the disturbance (Table 3). Both a level 2 and level 3 response would be recorded as a take by Level B harassment. NPS will record the time, source, and duration of the disturbance, as well as an estimated distance between the source and haulout.
NPS has complied with the monitoring requirements under the previous GLBA NP authorizations. NMFS posted the 2017 report on our website at
In 2017, of the 86 harbor seals that were observed: 33 flushed in to the water, 0 became alert but did not move >1 m, and 0 moved >1 m but did not flush into the water. In all, no harbor seal pups were observed. On two occasions, harbor seals were flushed into the water when islands were accessed for gull surveys. In these instances, the vessel approached the island at a very slow speed and most of the harbor seals flushed into the water at approximately 150—185 m. On two events, harbor seals were observed hauled out on Boulder Island and not disturbed due to their distance from the survey area. In addition, during two pre-monitoring surveys conducted for Lone Island, harbor seals were observed hauled out and the survey was not conducted to prevent disturbance of harbor seals.
In 2016, of the 216 harbor seals that were observed: 77 Flushed in to the water; 3 became alert but did not move >1 m, and 17 moved >1 m but did not flush into the water. On five occasions, harbor seals were flushed into the water when islands were accessed for gull surveys. In these instances, the vessel approached the island at a very slow speed and most of the harbor seals flushed into the water at approximately 50-100 m. In four instances, fewer than 25 harbor seals were present, but in one instance, 41 harbor seals were observed flushing into the water when NPS first saw them as they rounded a point of land in kayaks accessing Flapjack Island. In five instances, harbor seals were observed hauled out and not disturbed due to their distance from the survey areas.
In 2015, of the 156 harbor seals that were observed: 57 Flushed in to the water; 25 became alert but did not move >1 m, and 0 moved >1 m but did not flush into the water. No pups were observed. On 2 occasions, harbor seals were observed at the study sites in numbers <25 and the islands were accessed for gull surveys. In these instances, the vessel approached the island at very slow speed and most of the harbor seals flushed into water at approximately 200 m (Geikie 8/5/15) and 280 m (Lone, 8/5/15). In one instance, (Lone, 6/11/15) NPS counted 20 harbor seals hauled out during the initial vessel-based monitoring, but once on the island, NPS observed 33 hauled out seals. When NPS realized the number of seals present, they ceased the survey and left the area, flushing 13 seals into the water.
NPS can add to the knowledge of pinnipeds in the proposed action area by noting observations of: (1) Unusual behaviors, numbers, or distributions of pinnipeds, such that any potential follow-up research can be conducted by the appropriate personnel; (2) tag-bearing carcasses of pinnipeds, allowing transmittal of the information to appropriate agencies and personnel; and
NPS actively monitors harbor seals at breeding and molting haulout locations to assess trends over time (
NPS is establishing a monitoring program for pinnipeds in the SWAN region through its marine bird and marine mammal surveys. NPS will also coordinate with state and Federal marine mammal biologists to determine what additional data or observations may be useful for monitoring marine mammals and haul outs in the SWAN survey areas.
SWAN has been conducting nearshore coastal surveys along the KATM and KEFJ since 2006 and 2007, respectively (Coletti et al., 2018). SWAN collaborates closely with U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the University of Alaska Fairbanks and others under the Gulf Watch Alaska (
SWAN and GLBA NP are each required to submit separate draft annual reports on all activities and marine mammal monitoring results to NMFS within ninety days following the end of its monitoring period. These reports will include a summary of the information gathered pursuant to the monitoring requirements set forth in the Authorization. SWAN and GLBA NP will submit final reports to NMFS within 30 days after receiving comments on the draft report. If SWAN or GLBA NP receive no comments from NMFS on the report, NMFS will consider the draft report to be the final report. NPS will also submit a comprehensive 5-year report covering all activities conducted under the incidental take regulations 90 days following expiration of these regulations or, if new regulations are sought, no later than 90 days prior to expiration of the regulations.
Each report will describe the operations conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the proposed project. The report will provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The report will provide:
1. A summary and table of the dates, times, and weather during all research activities;
2. Species, number, location, and behavior of any marine mammals observed throughout all monitoring activities;
3. An estimate of the number (by species) of marine mammals exposed to acoustic or visual stimuli associated with the research activities; and
4. A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the monitoring and mitigation measures of the Authorization and full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality (
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Description and location of the incident (including tide level if applicable);
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
NPS shall not resume its activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with NPS to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. NPS may not resume their activities until notified by us via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that NPS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead researcher determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that NPS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities (
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
During these activities, harbor seals and Steller sea lions may exhibit behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the area during the proposed research and monitoring activities to avoid human and vessel disturbance. However, due to the project's minimal levels of visual and acoustic disturbance (Level B harassment only), NMFS does not expect NPS's specified activities to cause long-term behavioral disturbance, abandonment of the haulout area, injury, serious injury, or mortality. In addition, while a portion of these proposed activities would take place in areas of significance for marine mammal feeding, resting, breeding, or pupping, there would be no adverse impacts on marine mammal habitat as discussed above. Due to the nature, degree, and context of the behavioral harassment anticipated, we do not expect the activities to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival.
NMFS does not expect pinnipeds to permanently abandon any area surveyed by NPS researchers, as is evidenced by continued presence of pinnipeds at the GLBA NP sites during annual gull and climate monitoring. NMFS anticipates that impacts to hauled-out harbor seals and Steller sea lions during NPS' research and monitoring activities would be behavioral harassment of limited duration (
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• The takes from Level B harassment would be due to potential behavioral disturbance;
• The effects of the research activities would be limited to short-term startle responses and localized behavioral changes due to the short and sporadic duration of the research activities;
• The proposed activities would partially take place in areas of significance for marine mammal feeding, resting, breeding, or pupping but due to their nature and duration would not adversely impact marine mammal habitat or deny pinnipeds access to this habitat because of the large availability of alternate haulouts and short-duration of disturbance;
• Anecdotal observations and results from previous monitoring reports show that the pinnipeds returned to the various sites and did not permanently abandon haulout sites after NPS conducted their research activities; and
• Harbor seals and Steller sea lions may flush into the water despite researchers best efforts to keep calm and quiet around these pinnipeds; however, injury or mortality has never been documented and is not anticipated from flushing events. GLBA NP researchers would approach study sites slowly to provide enough time for any marine mammals present to slowly enter the water without panic. SWAN researchers would attempt to conduct their surveys at a distance which would not result in pinniped disturbance.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals proposed to be taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that NPS' research activities, including gull monitoring, climate monitoring, and marine animal surveys, could potentially affect, by Level B harassment only, two species of marine mammal under our jurisdiction. For harbor seals, this annual take estimate is small relative to the three impacted stocks, ranging from 0.3 to 3.7 percent (See Table 1, Table 5, and Table 6). For Steller sea lions, this annual take estimate is small (200 sea lions) relative to the western stock (0.4 percent) or eastern stock (0.5 percent). In addition to this, there is a high probability in the GLBA NP activities that repetitive takes of the same animal may occur which reduces the percentage of population impacted even further.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by the specified activities in GLBA NP, KATM, or KEFJ. Subsistence harvest is prohibited in these national parks and the nature of the activities means they should not affect any harvest occurring in nearby waters. There is possible pinniped harvest in KBAY, but the timing of the survey is removed from the peak seasons of harvest. Additionally, the disturbance to pinnipeds caused by NPS's activities is limited to non-lethal take by Level B harassment and is temporary and short in duration. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS is proposing to authorize take of western DPS Steller sea lions, which are listed under the ESA.
NMFS's Office of Protected Resources has requested initiation of Section 7 consultation with NMFS's Alaska Regional Office for the issuance of this LOA. NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.
The regulations governing the take of marine mammals incidental to NPS research and monitoring activities in GLBA NP and SWAN region would contain an adaptive management component.
The reporting requirements associated with this proposed rule are designed to provide NMFS with monitoring data from the previous year to allow consideration of whether any changes are appropriate. The use of adaptive management allows NMFS to consider new information from different sources to determine (with input from NPS regarding practicability) on an annual or biennial basis if mitigation or monitoring measures should be modified (including additions or deletions). Mitigation measures could be modified if new data suggests that such modifications would have a reasonable likelihood of reducing adverse effects to marine mammals and if the measures are practicable.
NPS's monitoring program (see “Proposed Monitoring and Reporting”) would be managed adaptively. Changes to the proposed monitoring program may be adopted if they are reasonably likely to better accomplish the MMPA monitoring goals described previously or may better answer the specific questions associated with NPS's monitoring plan.
The following are some of the possible sources of applicable data to be considered through the adaptive management process: (1) Results from monitoring reports, as required by MMPA authorizations; (2) results from general marine mammal and sound research; and (3) any information which reveals that marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent, or number not authorized by these regulations or subsequent LOAs.
NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments, information, and suggestions concerning NPS's request and the proposed regulations (see
Pursuant to the procedures established to implement Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rule is not significant.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NPS is the sole entity that would be subject to the requirements in these proposed regulations, and the NPS is not a small governmental jurisdiction, small organization, or small business, as defined by the RFA. Because of this certification, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. However, this proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) because the applicant is a Federal agency, and the information is not “uses for general statistical purposes”. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A).
Exports, Fish, Imports, Indians, Labeling, Marine mammals, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seafood, Transportation.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 217 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the National Park Service (NPS) and those persons it authorizes or funds to conduct activities on its behalf for the taking of marine mammals that occurs in the area outlined in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs incidental to the NPS's research and monitoring activities listed in the Letter of Authorization (LOA).
(b) The taking of marine mammals by NPS may be authorized in an LOA only if it occurs at Glacier Bay National Park (GLBA NP) or in the NPS's Southwest Alaska Inventory and Monitoring Network (SWAN) sites.
Regulations in this subpart are effective from March 1, 2019 through February 29, 2024.
Under LOAs issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.26, the Holder of the LOA (hereinafter “NPS”) may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the area described in § 217.20(b) by Level B harassment associated with research and monitoring activities,
Notwithstanding takings contemplated in § 217.20 and authorized by an LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.26, no person in connection with the activities described in § 217.20 may:
(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and requirements of this subpart or an LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.26;
(b) Take any marine mammal not specified in such LOAs;
(c) Take any marine mammal specified in such LOAs in any manner other than as specified;
(d) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if NMFS determines such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or stocks of such marine mammal; or
(e) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if NMFS determines such taking results in an unmitigable adverse impact on the species or stock of such marine mammal for taking for subsistence uses.
When conducting the activities identified in § 217.20(a), the mitigation measures contained in any LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 217.24 must be implemented. These mitigation measures shall include but are not limited to:
(a)
(2) Before all surveys, the lead NPS biologist must instruct additional survey crew on appropriate conduct when in the vicinity of hauled-out marine mammals. This training must brief survey personnel on marine mammals (inclusive of identification as needed,
(3) If humpback whales, killer whales, or beluga whales are observed, NPS must avoid operation of a motor vessel within
(b)
(2) On an annual basis, the NPS may conduct a maximum of three days of activities related to climate monitoring on Lone Island.
(3) NPS is required to conduct pre-survey monitoring before deciding to access a study site.
(4) Prior to deciding to land onshore, NPS must use high-powered image stabilizing binoculars before approaching at distances of greater than 500 m (1,640 ft) to determine and document the number, species, and location of hauled-out marine mammals.
(5) During pre-survey monitoring, vessels must maintain a distance of 328 to 1,640 ft (100 to 500 m) from the shoreline.
(6) If a harbor seal pup less than one week of age (neonate) is present within or near a study site or a path to a study site, NPS must not access the site nor conduct the study at that time. In addition, if during the activity, a pup less than one week of age is observed, all research activities must conclude for the day.
(7) NPS must maintain a distance of at least 100 m from any Steller sea lion;
(8) NPS must perform controlled and slow ingress to islands where harbor seals are present.
(9) NPS must monitor for offshore predators at the study sites during pre-survey monitoring and must avoid research activities when killer whales (
(10) NPS must maintain a quiet working atmosphere, avoid loud noises, and must use hushed voices in the presence of hauled-out pinnipeds.
(c)
(2) On an annual basis, the NPS may conduct one winter survey at each location listed in the LOA.
(3) NPS must maintain a minimum vessel distance of 100 meters from the shoreline at all times while surveying.
(4) If hauled out Steller sea lions or harbor seals are observed, NPS must maintain the vessel speed and minimum distance. If survey conditions allow, the survey will be attempted from a distance greater than 150 meters.
NPS is required to conduct marine mammal monitoring during research and monitoring activities. NPS and/or its designees must record the following for the designated monitoring activity:
(a)
(2) Information on the weather, including the tidal state and horizontal visibility;
(3) The observer will note the presence of any offshore predators (date, time, number, and species); and
(4) The observer will note unusual behaviors, numbers, or distributions of pinnipeds, such that any potential follow-up research can be conducted by the appropriate personnel; marked or tag-bearing pinnipeds or carcasses, allowing transmittal of the information to appropriate agencies; and any rare or unusual species of marine mammal for agency follow-up. The observer will report that information to NMFS's Alaska Fisheries Science Center and/or the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Marine Mammal Program.
(b)
(2) Information on the weather, including the tidal state and horizontal visibility; and
(3) The observer will note unusual behaviors, numbers, or distributions of pinnipeds, such that any potential follow-up research can be conducted by the appropriate personnel; marked or tag-bearing pinnipeds or carcasses, allowing transmittal of the information to appropriate agencies; and any rare or unusual species of marine mammal for agency follow-up. The observer will report that information to NMFS's Alaska Fisheries Science Center and/or the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Marine Mammal Program.
(c) NPS must submit separate annual draft reports for GLBA NP and SWAN on all monitoring conducted within ninety calendar days of the completion of annual research and monitoring activities. Final reports for both GLBA NP and SWAN must be prepared and submitted within thirty days following resolution of comments on each draft report from NMFS. This report must contain:
(1) A summary and table of the dates, times, and weather during all research activities;
(2) Species, number, location, and behavior of any marine mammals observed throughout all monitoring activities;
(3) An estimate of the number (by species) of marine mammals exposed to acoustic or visual stimuli associated with the research activities; and
(4) A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the monitoring and mitigation measures of
(d) NPS must submit a comprehensive 5-year report covering all activities conducted under the incidental take regulations at least 90 days prior to expiration of these regulations if new regulations are sought or 90 days after expiration of regulations.
(e)
(i) Time and date of the incident;
(ii) Description of the incident;
(iii) Environmental conditions (
(iv) Description of all marine mammal observations and active sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(v) Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
(vi) Fate of the animal(s); and
(vii) Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
(2) Activities must not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with NPS to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. NPS must not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
(3) In the event that NPS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
(4) In the event that NPS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal and determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities defined in § 217.20(a) (
(5) Pursuant to paragraphs § 217.25(e)(2) through (4), NPS may use discretion in determining what injuries (
(a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to these regulations, NPS must apply for and obtain an LOA.
(b) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a period of time not to exceed the expiration date of these regulations.
(c) If an LOA expires prior to the expiration date of these regulations, NPS may apply for and obtain a renewal of the LOA.
(d) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to mitigation and monitoring measures required by an LOA, NPS must apply for and obtain a modification of the LOA as described in § 217.27.
(e) The LOA shall set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (
(3) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(f) Issuance of the LOA shall be based on a determination that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under these regulations.
(g) Notice of issuance or denial of an LOA shall be published in the
(a) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.26 for the activity identified in § 217.20(a) shall be renewed or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that:
(1) The proposed specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as those described and analyzed for these regulations (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section), and
(2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required by the previous LOA under these regulations were implemented.
(b) For an LOA modification or renewal requests by the applicant that include changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do not change the findings made for the regulations or result in no more than a minor change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution by species or years), NMFS may publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
(c) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.26 for the activity identified in § 217.20(a) may be modified by NMFS under the following circumstances:
(1) Adaptive Management—NMFS may modify (including augment) the existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after consulting with NPS regarding the practicability of the modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring set forth in the preamble for these regulations.
(i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA:
(A) Results from NPS's monitoring from the previous year(s).
(B) Results from other marine mammal research or studies.
(C) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not authorized by these regulations or subsequent LOAs.
(ii) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS shall publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
(2) Emergencies—If NMFS determines that an emergency exists that poses a
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces AMS's intention to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve a 3-year extension and revision to a currently approved information collection; a voluntary customer survey concerning the delivery of official inspection, grading, and weighing services authorized under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) and the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA). OMB approved this information collection as OMB 0580-0018 under Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards (GIPSA). Due to the realignment of offices authorized by the Secretary's memorandum dated November 14, 2017, which eliminated the GIPSA as a standalone agency, the grain inspection activities formerly part of GIPSA are now under the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) and assigned a new OMB control number of 0581-0310.
This voluntary survey gives customers who are primarily in the grain, oilseed, rice, lentil, dry pea, edible bean, and related agricultural commodity markets an opportunity to provide feedback on the quality of services they receive and provides AMS with information on new services that customers wish to receive. Customer feedback assists Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) with enhancing the value of services and service delivery provided by the official inspection, grading, and weighing system.
We will consider comments that we receive by February 11, 2019.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Jennifer S. Hill, Grain Marketing Specialist, International Affairs Division, email address:
Congress enacted the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 71
The customer service survey consists of one document containing questions about timeliness, cost effectiveness, accuracy, consistency, usefulness of services and results, and the professionalism of employees. Some examples of survey questions include the following: “I receive results in a timely manner,” “Official results are accurate,” and “Inspection personnel are knowledgeable.” Customers assess survey questions using a one to five rating scale with responses ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” or “no opinion.” The survey also asks customers about the products for which they primarily request service, and what percentage of their product is officially inspected. Customers can also provide additional comments or request new or existing services on the survey. The survey provides space for customers to provide their email addresses should they wish to be directly contacted about their survey responses. By obtaining information from customers through a voluntary customer service survey, FGIS believes that it will continue to improve services and service delivery of its official inspection, grading, and weighing programs that meets or exceeds customer expectations.
As required by the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) and its implementing regulations (5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1)(i)), AMS specifically requests comments on: (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 AMS's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval.
All comments will become a matter of public record.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques and other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by January 14, 2019 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC, 20503. Commentors are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC, 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by January 14, 2019. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
“Application for Plant Variety Protection Certificate,” and the ST-470 series of forms, “Objective Description of Variety” along with other forms. The Agricultural Marketing Service will use the information from the applicant to be evaluated by examiners to determine if the variety is eligible for protection under the PVPA. If this information were not collected there will be no basis for issuing certificate of protection, and no way for applicants to request protection.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by January 14, 2019 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Helena-Lewis & Clark National Forest, USDA, Forest Service.
Notice of proposed new fee site.
The Helena-Lewis & Clark National Forest is proposing to implement a new fee at the newly acquired AT&T cabin with a proposed fee of $45 per night.
This fee is only proposed and will be determined upon further analysis and public comment.
Comments will be accepted through January 14, 2019. Comments can be compiled, analyzed, and shared
Lisa Stoeffler, Acting Forest Supervisor, Helena-Lewis & Clark National Forest, 2880 Skyway Drive, Helena, MT 59602 or email to
Rory Glueckert, Forest Recreation Program Manager, Helena-Lewis & Clark National Forest at 406-495-3761 or
The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the West Virginia Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 12:00 p.m. (EST) on Friday, January 11, 2019. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss plans for preparing the Committee report on the collateral consequences of a felony record on West Virginians' access to employment, housing, professional licenses and public benefits.
Friday, January 11, at 12:00 p.m. EST.
Ivy Davis at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-877-604-9665 and conference call ID: 5788080. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-888-364-3109 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-877-604-9665 and conference call ID: 5788080.
Members of the public are invited to submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425 or emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Pennsylvania Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 11:30 a.m. (EST) on Tuesday, January 15, 2019. The Committee is considering possible topics for its civil rights project.
Tuesday, January 15, 2019, at 11:30 a.m. (EDT).
Ivy Davis at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 800-949-2175 and conference call ID 8426059. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 800-949-2175 and conference call ID 8426059.
Members of the public are invited to make statements during the Public Comment section of the meeting or to submit written comments. The statements must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425 or emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the North Dakota Advisory Committee to the Commission will by teleconference at 12:00 p.m. (CST) on Tuesday, December 18, 2018. The purpose of the meeting is for planning on the voting rights project.
Tuesday, December 18, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. CST.
Evelyn Bohor, at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-719-5012 and conference call 1106229. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-719-5012 and conference call 1106229.
Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1040, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Virginia Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 12:00 p.m. (EST) on Wednesday, January 16, 2019. The purpose of the meeting is for Committee members to continue discussing plans for the in-person briefing on hate crimes in VA—incidences and responses to be scheduled in February.
Wednesday, January 16, 2019, at 12:00 p.m. EST.
Ivy Davis at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-800-
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-800-474-8920 and conference call ID 8310490.
Members of the public are invited to make statements during the Public Comment section of the meeting or to submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425 or emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
To ensure consideration, written or on-line comments must be submitted on or before February 11, 2019.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Michael Flaherty, U.S. Census Bureau, HQ-6H051, 4600 Silver Hill Rd., Suitland, MD 20746, (301) 763-7699 (or via the internet at
The United States Census Bureau plans to continue to conduct the Survey of State Government Research and Development (SGRD) to measure research and development performed and funded by state government agencies in the United States. The Census Bureau conducts the survey on behalf of the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) within the National Science Foundation.
The National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, includes a statutory charge to “provide a central clearinghouse for the collection, interpretation, and analysis of data on scientific and engineering resources and to provide a source of information for policy formulation by other agencies in the Federal Government.” This mandate was further codified in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 § 505, which requires NCSES to “collect, acquire, analyze, report, and disseminate . . . statistical data on (A) research and development trends . . .” Under the aegis of these legislative mandates, NCSES has sponsored surveys of research and development (R&D) since 1951, including the SGRD since 2006. The Census Bureau's authorization to undertake this work is found at 13 U.S.C. Section 8(b) which provides that the Census Bureau “may make special statistical compilations and surveys for departments, agencies, and establishments of the Federal government, the government of the District of Columbia, the government of any possession or area (including political subdivisions thereof) . . . State or local agencies, or other public and private persons and agencies.”
The SGRD is the only comprehensive source of state government research and development expenditure data collected on a nationwide scale using uniform definitions, concepts, and procedures. The collection covers the expenditures of all agencies in the fifty state governments, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico that perform or fund R&D. The NCSES coordinates with the Census Bureau for the data collection. The NCSES uses this collection to satisfy, in part, its need to collect research and development expenditures data.
Fiscal data provided by respondents aid data users in measuring the effectiveness of resource allocation. The products of this data collection make it possible for data users to obtain information on such things as expenditures according to source of funding (
There are no substantive changes to content for the SGRD so total respondent burden will not change.
The survey announcements and forms used in the research and development survey are:
The Census Bureau mails the 50 State governors, the mayor of DC, and the governor of Puerto Rico a letter requesting that they appoint a state coordinator for the survey. They are asked to respond within 30 days. The Census Bureau then emails the state coordinators a spreadsheet asking them to identify state agencies that may be active R&D performers. State coordinators are asked to respond within 30 days. The Census Bureau subsequently emails each state agency identified by the respective state coordinators a pdf version of the survey form, which contains embedded data checks and auto-summing functionality. Agencies are asked to complete and email back this pdf version of the form. Alternatively, agencies can download the pdf form from the Census Bureau's Help Site or contact the Census Bureau to request an spreadsheet version of the form with similar data checks and auto-summing. Agencies are also able to report over the telephone by calling the Census Bureau. Agencies are asked to respond within 60 days.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain pasta from Italy for the period of review (POR) January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.
Applicable December 13, 2018.
Ethan Talbott or Mary Kolberg, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1030, or (202) 482-1785, respectively.
On July 3, 2018, Commerce published in the
On September 10, 2018, Commerce published in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party who requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, Tesa, Indalco, and GRAMM withdrew their requests for review by the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of this order. Therefore, we are rescinding, in its entirety, the administrative review of the CVD order on certain pasta from Italy covering the period January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries of certain pasta from Italy during January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017. Countervailing duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit rate for estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing order on certain corrosion-resistant steel from India for the period of review (POR), January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017, based on the timely withdrawal of the request for review.
Applicable December 13, 2018.
Omar Qureshi, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5307
On July 3, 2018, Commerce published in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Uttam Galva was the only interested party that requested a review of itself. Additionally, Uttam Galva is the only respondent party to this review. As noted above, Uttam Galva withdrew its request for review by the 90-day deadline. As a result, Commerce is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain corrosion-resistant steel products from India covering the period January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017.
We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries. Because Commerce is rescinding this administrative review in its entirety, the entries to which this administrative review pertained shall be assessed countervailing duties at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of 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 the countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) has completed the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on monosodium glutamate (MSG) from the People's Republic of China (China) covering the period of review (POR) November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2017. We continue to find that none of the exporters of subject merchandise demonstrated eligibility for a separate rate; therefore, each is part of the China-wide entity.
Applicable December 13, 2018.
Kathryn Wallace, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6251.
On August 9, 2018, Commerce published the
The product covered by this order is MSG, whether or not blended or in solution with other products. Specifically, MSG that has been blended or is in solution with other product(s) is included in this scope when the resulting mix contains 15 percent or more of MSG by dry weight. Products with which MSG may be blended include, but are not limited to, salts, sugars, starches, maltodextrins, and various seasonings. Further, MSG is included in this order regardless of physical form (including, but not limited to, in monohydrate or anhydrous form, or as substrates, solutions, dry powders of any particle size, or unfinished forms such as MSG slurry), end-use application, or packaging. MSG in monohydrate form has a molecular formula of C
Commerce preliminarily determined that none of the companies subject to this review demonstrated eligibility for separate rate status and were thus found to be part of the China-wide entity.
Commerce's policy regarding the conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review.
Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in this review, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters not under review in this segment of the proceeding, but who have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (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 China-wide entity rate (
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation, which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this notice 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) finds that oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Turkey have been sold at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) September 1, 2016, through August 31, 2017.
Applicable December 13, 2018.
Dmitry Vladimirov, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0665.
On June 11, 2018, Commerce published the
Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
The merchandise covered by the order is certain OCTG. The merchandise subject to the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20, 7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40, 7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60, 7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10, 7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30, 7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50, 7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.61.15, 7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45, 7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90, 7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00, 7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10, 7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and 7306.29.81.50.
The merchandise subject to the order may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.39.00.76, 7304.39.00.80, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, 7304.59.80.25, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, 7304.59.80.70, 7304.59.80.80, 7305.31.40.00, 7305.31.60.90, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.90, 7306.50.50.50, and 7306.50.50.70.
While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
The record evidence in this review indicates that Tosçelik Profil ve Sac Endüstrisi A.Ş. and Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively, Tosçelik)
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached as an Appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public
We did not make any changes for these final results.
We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period September 1, 2016, through August 31, 2017.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Yücel for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For Tosçelik, which we determined had no shipments of subject merchandise in this review period, we will instruct CBP to liquidate any applicable entries of subject merchandise at the all-others rate.
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of the administrative review for all shipments of OCTG from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for companies subject to this review will be the rates established in the final results of the review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior completed segment of the proceeding, including those for which Commerce has determined had no shipments during the POR, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this administrative review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer has been covered in a prior complete segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 35.86 percent,
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 60 Assessment Scoping webinar for South Atlantic Red Porgy.
The SEDAR 60 assessment of the South Atlantic stock of Red Porgy will consist of a series of webinars and an in-person workshop. See
A SEDAR 60 Assessment Scoping webinar will be held on Wednesday, January 9, 2019, from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m.
Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. The product of the SEDAR webinar series will be a
The items of discussion in the Assessment Scoping webinar are as follows:
Participants will review data and discuss data issues, as necessary, and initial modeling issues.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Groundfish Management Team (GMT) will hold a week-long work session that is open to the public.
The GMT meeting will be held Monday, January 14, 2019 through Friday, January 18, 2019. The GMT meeting will begin on Monday, January 14, from 1 p.m. until business for the day is completed. The meeting will reconvene Tuesday, January 15 through Friday, January 18, from 8:30 a.m. until business for each day has been completed.
The meeting will be held at the Pacific Council Office, Large Conference Room, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.
Mr. Todd Phillips, Pacific Council; phone: (503) 820-2426.
The primary purpose of this week-long work session is for the GMT to prepare for 2019 Pacific Council meetings. Specific agenda items will include: A detailed review of 2019/20 harvest specifications and management measure process, planning for the 2021/22 harvest specifications and management measure process, meeting with representatives from the Pacific Council's Ecosystem Workgroup; consideration of the groundfish workload prioritization process and Council Operating Procedure 9, Endangered Species Act salmon mitigation measures, and GMT chair/vice chair elections. The GMT may also address work assigned by the Pacific Council that relates to groundfish management, such as: A methodology overview of Sablefish Management and Trawl Allocation Attainment Committee analysis needs and impact analysis of proposed changes to the directed Pacific halibut fishery on groundfish. A detailed agenda will be available on the Pacific Council's website prior to the meeting.
Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2411, at least 10 business days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, NMFS, announce that the Proposed Endangered Species Act (ESA) Recovery Plan for Puget Sound Steelhead (Proposed Plan) is available for public review and comment. The Proposed Plan addresses the Puget Sound Steelhead (
Comments on the Proposed Plan must be received by February 11, 2019.
You may submit comments on the Proposed Plan, identified by
•
•
The Proposed Plan is available online at
David Price, (360) 753-9598,
We are responsible for developing and implementing recovery plans for Pacific salmon and steelhead listed under the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We believe it is essential to have local support of recovery plans by those whose activities directly affect the listed species and whose continued commitment and leadership will be needed to implement the necessary recovery actions. We therefore support and participate in collaborative efforts to develop recovery plans that involve state, tribal, and Federal entities, local communities, and other stakeholders. For this Proposed Plan for threatened Puget Sound Steelhead, we worked collaboratively with local, state, tribal, and Federal partners to produce a recovery plan that satisfies the ESA requirements. We have determined that this Proposed ESA Recovery Plan for Puget Sound Steelhead meets the statutory requirements for a recovery plan and are proposing to adopt it as the ESA recovery plan for this threatened species. Section 4(f) of the ESA, as amended in 1988, requires that public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment be provided prior to final approval of a recovery plan. This notice solicits comments on this Proposed Plan.
The geographic area covered by the Proposed Plan is the Puget Sound basin, from the Elwha River (inclusive) eastward, including rivers in Hood Canal, South Sound, and North Sound, including steelhead from six artificial propagation programs: The Green River Natural Program; White River Winter Steelhead Supplementation Program; Hood Canal Steelhead Supplementation Off-station Projects in the Dewatto, Skokomish, and Duckabush Rivers; and the Lower Elwha Fish Hatchery Wild Steelhead Recovery Program.
For the purpose of recovery planning for the ESA-listed species of Pacific salmon and steelhead in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, NMFS designated five geographically based “recovery domains.” The Puget Sound Steelhead DPS spawning range is in the Puget Sound domain. For each domain, NMFS appointed a team of scientists, nominated for their geographic and species expertise, to provide a solid scientific foundation for recovery plans. The Puget Sound Steelhead Technical Recovery Team included biologists from NMFS, other Federal agencies, state agencies, tribes, and academic institutions.
A primary task for the Puget Sound Steelhead Technical Recovery Team was to recommend criteria for determining when each component population within a DPS or Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) should be considered viable (
We also collaborated with the state of Washington, tribes, other Federal agencies, local governments, representatives of industry and environmental groups, other stakeholders, and the public to develop the Proposed Plan. The Plan for the Puget Sound steelhead DPS was developed by NMFS in cooperation with a Recovery Team made up of experts from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Nooksack Tribe, Seattle Light, Long Live the Kings, Puget Sound Partnership, and NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center. These groups provided vital input during the planning process, and their continued involvement during recovery plan implementation is critical to the success of our joint efforts to recover Puget Sound steelhead.
The Proposed Plan contains biological background and contextual information that includes description of the DPS, the planning area, and the context of the plan's development. It presents relevant information on DPS structure and guidelines for assessing salmonid population and DPS status. It provides background on the natural history of steelhead, population status, and threats to their sustainability.
The Puget Sound steelhead DPS consists of three Major Population Groups (MPGs) and 32 Demographically Independent Populations (DIPs). NMFS based its decision to list the species in 2007 on findings by the Puget Sound Steelhead Biological Review Team (Hard
The Proposed Plan presents NMFS' proposed recovery goals and the viability criteria and listing factor criteria for making a delisting decision. The proposed viability criteria for the Puget Sound steelhead DPS are designed to improve the DPS so it “has a negligible risk of extinction due to threats from demographic variation, local environmental variation, and genetic diversity changes over a 100-year time frame” based on the status of the MPGs and DIPs, and supporting ecosystems (McElhany
The proposed listing factor criteria are based on the five listing factors found in the ESA section 4(a)(1). Before NMFS can remove the DPS from protection under the ESA, the factors that led to ESA listing need to have been reduced or eliminated to the point where Federal protection under the ESA is no longer needed, and there is reasonable certainty that the relevant regulatory mechanisms are adequate to protect Puget Sound steelhead viability. NMFS listing factor criteria for Puget Sound steelhead address pressures from freshwater habitat degradation, hatcheries, and other factors that led to the species listing and continue to affect its viability.
The Proposed Plan also describes specific information on the following: Current status of Puget Sound steelhead; pressures (limiting factors) and threats throughout the life cycle that have contributed to the species decline; recovery strategies to address the threats based on the best available science; site-specific actions with timelines; and a proposed adaptive management framework for focusing needed research and evaluations and revising our recovery strategies and actions. The Proposed Plan also summarizes time and costs required to implement recovery actions.
With approval of the final Puget Sound Steelhead recovery plan, we will implement the actions in the plan for which we have authority and funding; encourage other Federal, state and local agencies and tribal governments to implement recovery actions for which they have responsibility, authority, and funding; and work cooperatively with tribes, the public and local stakeholders on implementation of other actions. We expect the recovery plan to guide us and other Federal agencies in evaluating Federal actions under ESA section 7, as well as in implementing other provisions of the ESA and other statutes. For example, the plan will provide greater biological context for evaluating the effects that a proposed action may have on the species by providing delisting criteria, information on priority areas for addressing specific limiting factors, and information on how the DPS can tolerate varying levels of risk.
When we are considering a species for delisting, the agency will examine whether the section 4(a)(1) listing factors have been addressed. To assist in this examination, we will use the delisting criteria described in Chapter 4 of the Proposed Plan, which include both viability criteria and listing factor criteria addressing each of the ESA section 4(a)(1) listing factors, as well as any other relevant data and policy considerations.
We are soliciting written comments on the Proposed Plan. All substantive comments received by the date specified above will be considered and incorporated, as appropriate, prior to our decision whether to approve the plan. While we invite comments on all aspects of the Proposed Plan, we are particularly interested in comments on the proposed strategies and actions, comments on the cost of recovery actions, and comments on establishing an appropriate implementation forum for the plan. We will issue a news release announcing the adoption and availability of the final plan. We will post on the NMFS West Coast Region website (
The complete citations for the references used in this document can be obtained by contacting NMFS (see
16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 64 Data webinar for Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic yellowtail snapper.
The SEDAR 64 assessment process of Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic yellowtail snapper will consist of a Data Workshop, and a series of assessment webinars, and a Review Workshop. See
The SEDAR 64 Data webinar will be held January 11, 2019, from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (See Contact Information Below) to request an invitation providing webinar access information. Please request webinar invitations at least 24 hours in advance of each webinar.
SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405.
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; Email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) a Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion during the Data webinar are as follows:
Panelists will review the data sets being considered for the assessment.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office for Coastal Management (OCM), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of public meeting.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management will hold a public meeting to solicit comments on the performance evaluation of the Rhode Island Coastal Management Program.
For specific dates, times, and locations of the public meetings, see
You may submit comments on the coastal program NOAA intends to evaluate by any of the following methods:
Carrie Hall, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, Office for Coastal Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, N/OCM1, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, by phone at (240) 533-0730 or email comments
Section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved state and territorial coastal programs. The process includes one or more public meetings, consideration of written public comments, and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. During the evaluation, NOAA will consider the extent to which the state has met the national objectives, adhered to the management program approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the CZMA. When the evaluation is completed, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the
You may participate or submit oral comments at the public meeting scheduled as follows:
Written public comments must be received on or before February 15, 2018.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permits and permit amendments.
Notice is hereby given that permits or permit amendments have been issued to the following entities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as applicable.
The permits and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone: (301) 427-8401; fax: (301) 713-0376.
Jennifer Skidmore (Permit No. 17429-01), Carrie Hubard (Permit No. 21678), and Sara Young (Permit No. 21425); at (301) 427-8401.
Notices were published in the
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance of these permit was based on a finding that such permits: (1) Were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in Section 2 of the ESA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting (webinar).
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will host a webinar meeting of the Area 2A Pacific halibut governmental management entities. This meeting is open to the public.
The webinar meeting will be held on Thursday, January 3, 2019, from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m.
The meeting will be held via webinar. A public listening station is available at the Pacific Council office (address below). To attend the webinar (1) join the meeting by visiting this link
Ms. Robin Ehlke, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2410.
The primary purpose of the Area 2A Pacific halibut manager's meeting is to prepare and develop recommendations for the 2019 International Pacific Halibut Commission's (IPHC) annual meeting in Victoria, BC from January 28 through February 1. Recommendations generated from the meeting will be communicated to the IPHC by the Pacific Council's representative, Mr. Phil Anderson. Attendees may also address other topics relating to Pacific halibut management. No management actions will be decided by the attendees. The meeting will be open to the public, and the agenda, which will be posted on the Pacific Council website prior to the meeting, will provide for a public comment period.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (503) 820-2411 at least 10 business days prior to the meeting date.
Office for Coastal Management (OCM), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the availability of final evaluation findings of state coastal programs and national estuarine research reserves. The NOAA Office for Coastal Management has completed review of the Coastal Zone Management Program evaluations for the state and territories of New Jersey, Guam, and U.S. Virgin Islands. The state and territories were found to be implementing and enforcing their federally approved Coastal Zone Management Programs, addressing the national coastal management objectives identified in CZMA Section 303(2)(A)-(K), and adhering to the programmatic terms of their financial assistance awards.
The NOAA Office for Coastal Management has completed review of the National Estuarine Research Reserve evaluations for Grand Bay, Jobos Bay, and Padilla Bay. The reserves were found to be adhering to programmatic requirements of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. Copies of these final evaluation findings may be downloaded at
Carrie Hall, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, Office for Coastal Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, N/OCM1, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or
Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 11.419 Coastal Zone Management Program Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 61 Assessment Webinar II for Gulf of Mexico red grouper.
The SEDAR 61 stock assessment process for Gulf of Mexico red grouper will consist of an In-person Workshop, and a series of data and assessment webinars. See
The SEDAR 61 Assessment Webinar II will be held January 10, 2019, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; Email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and
The items of discussion during the Assessment Webinar are as follows:
1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the in-person workshop, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.
2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of 2018 schedule of fees.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) charges fees to designated contract markets and registered futures associations to recover the costs incurred by the Commission in the operation of its program of oversight of self-regulatory organization rule enforcement programs, specifically National Futures Association (“NFA”), a registered futures association, and the designated contract markets. Fees collected from each self-regulatory organization are deposited in the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts. The calculation of the fee amounts charged for 2018 by this notice is based upon an average of actual program costs incurred during fiscal year (FY) 2015, FY 2016, and FY 2017.
Each self-regulatory organization is required to remit electronically the applicable fee on or before February 11, 2019.
Anthony C. Thompson, Executive Director, Commodity Futures Trading Commission; (202) 418-5697; Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. For information on electronic payment, contact Jennifer Fleming; (202) 418-5034; Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.
This notice relates to fees for the Commission's review of the rule enforcement programs at the registered futures associations
The fees charged by the Commission to the SROs are designed to recover program costs, including direct labor costs and overhead. The overhead rate is calculated by dividing total Commission-wide overhead direct program labor costs into the total amount of the Commission-wide overhead pool. For this purpose, direct program labor costs are the salary costs of personnel working in all Commission programs. Overhead costs generally consist of the following Commission-wide costs: Indirect personnel costs (leave and benefits), rent, communications, contract services, utilities, equipment, and supplies. This formula has resulted in the following overhead rates for the most recent three years (rounded to the nearest whole percent): 211 percent for FY 2015, and 190 percent for FY 2016, and 175 precent for FY 2017.
Under the formula adopted by the Commission in 1993, the Commission calculates the fee to recover the costs of its rule enforcement reviews and examinations, based on the three-year average of the actual cost of performing such reviews and examinations at each SRO. The cost of operation of the Commission's SRO oversight program varies from SRO to SRO, according to the size and complexity of each SRO's program. The three-year averaging computation method is intended to smooth out year-to-year variations in cost. Timing of the Commission's reviews and examinations may affect costs—a review or examination may span two fiscal years and reviews and examinations are not conducted at each SRO each year.
As noted above, adjustments to actual costs may be made to relieve the burden on an SRO with a disproportionately large share of program costs. The Commission's formula provides for a reduction in the assessed fee if an SRO has a smaller percentage of United States industry contract volume than its percentage of overall Commission oversight program costs. This adjustment reduces the costs so that, as a percentage of total Commission SRO oversight program costs, they are in line
The calculation is made as follows: The fee required to be paid to the Commission by each DCM is equal to the lesser of actual costs based on the three-year historical average of costs for that DCM or one-half of average costs incurred by the Commission for each DCM for the most recent three years, plus a pro rata share (based on average trading volume for the most recent three years) of the aggregate of average annual costs of all DCMs for the most recent three years.
The formula for calculating the second factor is: 0.5a + 0.5 vt = current fee. In this formula, “a” equals the average annual costs, “v” equals the percentage of total volume across DCMs over the last three years, and “t” equals the average annual costs for all DCMs. NFA has no contracts traded; hence, its fee is based simply on costs for the most recent three fiscal years. This table summarizes the data used in the calculations of the resulting fee for each entity:
An example of how the fee is calculated for one exchange, the Chicago Board of Trade, is set forth here:
a. Actual three-year average costs = $48,465.
b. The alternative computation is: (.5) ($48,465) + (.5) (.3014) ($1,373,924) = $231,283.
c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in this case $48,465.
As noted above, the alternative calculation based on contracts traded is not applicable to NFA because it is not a DCM and has no contracts traded. The Commission's average annual cost for conducting oversight review of the NFA rule enforcement program during fiscal years 2015 through 2017 was $453,390. The fee to be paid by the NFA for the current fiscal year is $453,390.
Fees for the Commission's review of the rule enforcement programs at the registered futures associations and DCMs regulated by the Commission are as follows:
The Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) requires deposits of fees owed to the government by electronic transfer of funds.
Fees collected from each self-regulatory organization shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by February 11, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Consortium for Health and Military Performance (CHAMP), Department of Military and Emergency Medicine (MEM), Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, ATTN: Mr. Ian Gutierrez, 6720B Rockledge Drive, Suite 605, Bethesda, MD 20817, at (301) 295-1362.
Respondents will be members of the general public recruited through standard internet recruiting techniques. Respondents will complete the online survey once. The responses will help in developing and validating a measure of spiritual fitness. If the information is not collected, the measure cannot be created. This will potential result in faulty evaluations of USSOCOM Chaplaincy services.
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 December 6, 2018, pursuant to section 210(h)(2)(B) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), Great Divide Wind Farm 2 LLC and Great Divide Wind Farm 3 LLC (Project Companies or Petitioner) filed a Petition for Enforcement, requesting that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) initiate an enforcement action against New Mexico Public Regulation Commission to remedy their alleged improper implementation of PURPA, all as more fully explained in their petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Petitioners.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l. This notice is available for review and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Commission's website at
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
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 October 3, 2018, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) filed an application in Docket No. CP19-1-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act to abandon certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Palmyra to Ogden A-Line Project (Project), and would allow Northern to abandon approximately 146.6 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline to provide for safer long-term operation of the mainline.
On October 17, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
Northern proposes to isolate and abandon by sale to DKM Enterprises, LLC (DKM) approximately 146.6 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline on Northern's M580A and M530A system (collectively referred to as the A-line) in Otoe and Cass counties in Nebraska, and Mills, Pottawattamie, Cass, Audubon, Guthrie, Greene, and Boone counties in Iowa. Northern indicates that DKM intends to salvage the abandoned pipeline.
To abandon the pipeline, Northern would disconnect and cap the A-line at five interconnections where it is linked to other system facilities. Ground disturbances would be limited to one location in Otoe County, Nebraska, and four locations in Mills, Guthrie, and Boone (two locations) counties, Iowa, where the A-line would be disconnected from Northern's existing pipeline system.
On November 14, 2018 the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced Innovative Vermillion Power, L.L.C.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is December 27, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that on February 14, 2019, staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold the next Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) Users Group meeting. The meeting will take place from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EST) in the Commission Meeting Room at 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. All interested persons are invited to attend. For those unable to attend in person, access to the meeting will be available via webcast.
This meeting provides a forum for dialogue between Commission staff and EQR users to discuss potential improvements to the EQR program and the EQR filing process. Prior to the meeting, staff would like input on discussion topics. Individuals may suggest agenda topics for consideration by emailing
Please note that matters pending before the Commission and subject to ex parte limitations cannot be discussed at this meeting. An agenda of the meeting will be provided in a subsequent notice.
Due to the nature of the discussion, those interested in participating are encouraged to attend in person. All interested persons (whether attending in person or via webcast) are asked to register online at
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about the EQR Users Group meeting, please contact Jeff Sanders of the Commission's Office of Enforcement at (202) 502-6455, or send an email to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “EPA's ENERGY STAR Program in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors” (EPA ICR No. 1772.08, OMB Control No. 2060-0347), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through September 30, 2019. 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.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 11, 2019.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0407, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Cynthia Veit, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, (6202A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-9494; fax number: 202-343-2204; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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,
To join ENERGY STAR, organizations are asked to complete a Partnership Application that establishes their commitment to energy efficiency. Partners agree to undertake efforts such as measuring, tracking, and benchmarking their organization's energy performance by using tools such as those offered by ENERGY STAR; developing and implementing a plan to improve energy performance in their facilities and operations by adopting a strategy provided by ENERGY STAR; and educating staff and the public about their Partnership with ENERGY STAR, and highlighting achievements with the ENERGY STAR, where available.
Partners also may be asked to periodically submit information to EPA as needed to assist in program implementation.
Partnership in ENERGY STAR is voluntary and can be terminated by Partners or EPA at any time. EPA does not expect organizations to join the program unless they expect participation to be cost effective and otherwise beneficial for them.
In addition, Partners and other interested parties can seek recognition and help EPA promote energy-efficient technologies by evaluating the efficiency of their buildings using EPA's on-line tools (
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of re-establishment of Great Lakes Advisory Board.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the re-establishment of the Great Lakes Advisory Board (GLAB).
Edlynzia Barnes, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Great Lakes National Program Office, Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL; telephone number: 312-886-6249; email address:
The GLAB is being re-established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(d). The Advisory Board will provide advice and recommendations on matters related to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. The Advisory Board will also advise on domestic matters related to implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the U.S. and Canada.
The major objectives will be to provide advice and recommendations on:
a. Great Lakes protection and restoration activities.
b. Long term goals, objectives, and priorities for Great Lakes protection and restoration.
c. Other issues identified by the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force/Regional Working Group.
EPA has determined that this federal advisory committee is in the public interest and will assist the EPA in performing its duties and responsibilities. Copies of the GLAB's charter will be filed with the appropriate congressional committees and the Library of Congress.
The GLAB expects to meet in person or by electronic means (
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation.
Notice, regular meeting.
Notice is hereby given of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (Board).
The meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on December 13, 2018, from 11:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102. Submit attendance requests via email to
Dale Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056,
Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. Please send an email to
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
1.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding authorized negotiators and integrity of unit prices.
Submit comments on or before January 14, 2019.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA, 202-208-4949, or via email to
This information collection requirement, OMB Control No. 9000-0048, currently titled “Authorized Negotiators,” is proposed to be retitled “Authorized Negotiators and Integrity of Unit Prices,” due to consolidation with currently approved information collection requirement OMB Control No. 9000-0080, Integrity of Unit Prices.
This information collection requirement pertains to information that offerors and contractors must submit in response to the requirements in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) as follows:
1. Authorized Negotiators—FAR 52.215-1(c)(2)(iv). Firms offering supplies or services to the Government under negotiated solicitations must provide the names, titles, and telephone and facsimile numbers (and electronic addresses if available) of authorized negotiators to assure that discussions are held with authorized individuals.
2. Integrity of Unit Prices—FAR 52.215-14. This clause requires offerors and contractors under negotiated solicitations and contracts to identify those supplies which they will not manufacture or to which they will not contribute significant value, if requested by the contracting officer or when contracting without adequate price competition. This requirement does not apply to: Contracts below the simplified acquisition threshold, construction and architect-engineering services, utility services, service contracts where supplies are not required, commercial items, and contracts for petroleum products.
A 60-day notice published in the
Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0048, Authorized Negotiators and Integrity of Unit Prices, in all correspondence.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice and request for comments.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council invites the public to comment on a renewal of an approved information collection requirement concerning value engineering requirements.
Submit comments on or before February 11, 2019.
The FAR Council invites interested persons to submit comments on this information collection by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Marilyn E. Chambers, Procurement Analyst, 202-285-7380, or
Per Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 48, value engineering is the technique by which contractors (1) voluntarily suggest methods for performing more economically and share in any resulting savings, or (2) are required to establish a program to identify and submit to the Government methods for performing more economically. These recommendations are submitted to the Government as value engineering change proposals (VECP's) and they must include specific information. This information is needed to enable the Government to evaluate the VECP and, if accepted, to arrange for an equitable sharing plan.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary; whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0027, Value Engineering Requirements, in all correspondence.
The RPG cross-site evaluation will extend our understanding of what types of programs and services grantees provided to participants, how grantees leveraged their partnerships to coordinate services for children and families, and what the outcomes were for children and families enrolled in RPG programs. First, the cross-site evaluation will describe the characteristics of participants served by RPG programs, the types of services provided to families, the dosage of each type of service received by families, and the level of participant engagement with the services provided. Second, the
The evaluation is being undertaken by the Children's Bureau and its contractor Mathematica Policy Research. The evaluation is being implemented by Mathematica Policy Research and its subcontractor, WRMA Inc.
The RPG Cross-Site Evaluation will include the following data collection activities:
In addition to conducting local evaluations and participating in the RPG Cross-Site Evaluation, the RPG grantees are legislatively required to report performance indicators aligned with their proposed program strategies and activities. A key strategy of the RPG Cross-Site Evaluation is to minimize burden on the grantees by ensuring that the cross-site evaluation, which includes all grantees in a study that collects data to report on implementation, the partnerships, and participant characteristics and outcomes, fully meets the need for performance reporting. Thus, rather than collecting separate evaluation and performance indicator data, the grantees need only participate in the cross-site evaluation. In addition, using the standardized instruments that the Children's Bureau has specified will ensure that grantees have valid and reliable data on child and family outcomes for their local evaluations. The inclusion of an impact study conducted on a subset of grantees with rigorous designs will also provide the Children's Bureau, Congress, grantees, providers, and researchers with information about the effectiveness of RPG programs.
A 60-Day
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that IC-GREEN (indocyanine green for injection), 10 milligrams (mg)/vial, 40 mg/vial, and 50 mg/vial, was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for indocyanine green for injection, 10 mg/vial, 40 mg/vial, and 50 mg/vial if all other legal and regulatory requirements are met.
Heather A. Dorsey, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6219, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3601.
In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn
IC-GREEN (indocyanine green for injection), 10 mg/vial, 25 mg/vial, 40 mg/vial, and 50 mg/vial, is the subject of NDA 011525, held by Akorn, Inc. IC-GREEN (indocyanine green for injection), 25 mg/vial and 50 mg/vial, became conditionally effective on February 2, 1959. IC-GREEN (indocyanine green for injection), 10 mg/vial and 40 mg/vial, became conditionally effective on March 20, 1967. NDA 011525 was included in the Drug Efficacy Study Implementation review, (35 FR 12231 (July 30, 1970); 42 FR 31495 (June 21, 1977)) and the application was approved on August 2, 1989. IC-GREEN (indocyanine green for injection) is indicated for determining cardiac output, hepatic function, and liver blood flow, and for ophthalmic angiography.
IC-GREEN (indocyanine green for injection), 10 mg/vial, 40 mg/vial, and 50 mg/vial, is currently listed in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.
Foley & Lardner LLP submitted a citizen petition dated May 3, 2018 (Docket No. FDA-2018-P-1734), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether IC-GREEN (indocyanine green for injection), 10 mg/vial, 40 mg/vial, and 50 mg/vial, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. In 1987, IC-GREEN (indocyanine green for injection), 10 mg/vial and 40 mg/vial were discontinued from marketing. In 1996, Akorn, Inc. discontinued marketing IC-GREEN (indocyanine green for injection), 50mg/vial.
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records, and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that IC-GREEN (indocyanine green for injection), 10 mg/vial, 40 mg/vial, and 50 mg/vial, was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that IC-GREEN (indocyanine green for injection), 10 mg/vial, 40 mg/vial, and 50 mg/vial, was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of IC-GREEN (indocyanine green for injection), 10 mg/vial, 40 mg/vial, and 50 mg/vial from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have reviewed the available evidence and determined that these drug products were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list IC-GREEN (indocyanine green for injection), 10 mg/vial, 40 mg/vial, and 50 mg/vial, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to IC-GREEN (indocyanine green for injection), 10 mg/vial, 40 mg/vial, and 50 mg/vial, may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is withdrawing approval of nine abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) from multiple applicants. The applicants notified the Agency in writing that the drug products were no longer marketed and requested that the approval of the applications be withdrawn.
Approval is withdrawn as of January 14, 2019.
Trang Tran, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1671, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7945,
The applicants listed in the table have informed FDA that these drug products are no longer marketed and have requested that FDA withdraw approval of the applications under the process described in § 314.150(c) (21 CFR 314.150(c)). The applicants have also, by their requests, waived their opportunity for a hearing. Withdrawal of approval of an application or abbreviated application under § 314.150(c) is without prejudice to refiling.
Therefore, approval of the applications listed in the table, and all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn as of January 14, 2019. Introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of products without approved new drug applications violates section 301(a) and (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and (d)). Drug products that are listed in the table that are in inventory on January 14, 2019, may continue to be dispensed until the inventories have been depleted or the drug products have reached their expiration dates or otherwise become violative, whichever occurs first.
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 “Data Integrity and Compliance With Drug CGMP: Questions and Answers.” The purpose of the guidance is to clarify the role of data integrity in current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) for drugs. (Unless otherwise noted, the term CGMP refers to CGMPs for drugs, including biologics.) The guidance has been developed in response to an increase in findings of data integrity lapses in recent inspections. FDA expects that all data be reliable and accurate. CGMP regulations and guidance allow for flexible and risk-based strategies to prevent and detect data integrity issues. Firms should implement meaningful and effective strategies to manage their data integrity risks based on their process understanding and knowledge management of technologies and business models.
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; 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; or the Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Karen Takahashi, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 75, Rm. 6686, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3191; 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; or Jonathan Bray, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-232), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rm. 130, Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5623.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Data Integrity and Compliance With Drug CGMP: Questions and Answers.” In recent years, FDA has increasingly observed CGMP violations involving data integrity during CGMP inspections. This is troubling because ensuring data integrity is an important component of industry's responsibility to ensure the safety, efficacy, and quality of drugs, and of FDA's ability to protect the public health. These data integrity-related CGMP violations have led to numerous regulatory actions, including warning letters, import alerts, and consent decrees. The underlying premise in 21 CFR 210.1 and 212.2 is that CGMP sets forth minimum requirements to assure that drugs meet the standards of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act regarding safety, identity, strength, quality, and purity.
The guidance addresses specific questions about how data integrity relates to compliance with CGMP for drugs, as well as more general data integrity concepts, in question and answer format. This guidance was published as a draft guidance in April 2016—“Data Integrity and Compliance With CGMP”—and has been revised in response to comments from the docket for clarity. Other comments to the docket requested additional details on FDA's thinking on current best practices and additional examples. The Agency has used clarifying language and additional examples that also address best practices for ensuring data integrity. A paragraph regarding independent security role assignments for small operations or facilities was removed because the guidance for industry “PET Drugs—Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP)” covering this topic is sufficiently clear.
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 data integrity and compliance with drug CGMP. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 210 and 211 (CGMPs), 212 (positron emission tomography CGMPs), and 11 (electronic records and signatures) have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0139, 0910-0667, and 0910-0303, respectively.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), authorizes FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish notice of the award of the priority review voucher. FDA has determined that GAMIFANT (emapalumab-lzsg) Injection, manufactured by Novimmune S.A., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher.
Althea Cuff, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4061, Fax: 301-796-9856, email:
FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of an approved rare pediatric disease product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff), which was added by FDASIA, FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined that GAMIFANT (emapalumab-lzsg) Injection, manufactured by Novimmune S.A., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher. GAMIFANT (emapalumab-lzsg) Injection is indicated for the treatment of adult and pediatric (newborn and older) patients with primary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) with refractory, recurrent or progressive disease or intolerance with conventional HLH therapy.
For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529 of the FD&C Act, go to
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with grant and/or contract proposals applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as mentioned, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (FEMA-4408-DR), dated November 27, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued November 27, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated November 27, 2018, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania resulting from severe storms and flooding during the period of August 10-15, 2018, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the Commonwealth. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Steven S. Ward, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Bradford, Columbia, Lackawanna, Lycoming, Montour, Schuylkill, Sullivan, Susquehanna, Tioga, and Wyoming Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of California (FEMA-3409-EM), dated November 9, 2018, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued November 29, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effective November 25, 2018.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (
Comments must be submitted on or before January 14, 2019.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472-3100, or email address
This proposed information collection previously published in the
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Kansas (FEMA-4403-DR), dated October 19, 2018, and related determinations.
The amendment was issued on November 21, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Constance C. Johnson-Cage, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
This action terminates the appointment of Paul Taylor as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of California (FEMA-3409-EM), dated November 9, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued November 9, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated November 9, 2018, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas of the State of California resulting from wildfires beginning on November 8, 2018, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, David G. Samaniego, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the State of California have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
Butte, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-Day notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0003, abstracted below that we will submit to OMB for a revision in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. Aircraft operators must provide certain information to TSA and adopt and implement a TSA-approved security program. These programs require aircraft operators to maintain and update records to ensure compliance with security provisions set forth in 49 CFR part 1544.
Send your comments by February 11, 2019.
Comments may be emailed to
Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-2062.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;
(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.
This information collection is mandatory for aircraft operators. As part of their security programs, affected aircraft operators are required to maintain and update, as necessary, records of compliance with the security program provisions set forth in part 1544, including maintaining records of compliance for selected crew and security employees. Part 1544 also requires affected aircraft operators to submit security program amendments and SD compliance plans to TSA, when
In addition, part 1544 requires the affected aircraft operators to submit information on aircraft operators' flight crews and other employees, passengers, and cargo. The information collection includes information regarding security program, amendments, fingerprint-based criminal history records check (CHRC) applications; recordkeeping requirements for security program, CHRCs, and training; watchlist matching for employees and reporting matches to TSA; watchlist matching for passengers in case of Secure Flight outages; and incident and suspicious activity reporting. Aircraft operators may provide the information electronically or manually.
Aircraft operators must ensure that certain flight crew members and employees (including certain contract employees and authorized representatives) submit to and receive a CHRC. These requirements apply to flight crew members and employees with unescorted access authority to a Security Identification Display Area (SIDA) or who perform screening, checked baggage, or cargo functions. As part of the CHRC process, the individual must provide identifying information, including fingerprints. Additionally, aircraft operators must maintain these records and make them available to TSA for inspection and copying upon request.
TSA is revising the information collection and will no longer collect information regarding watchlist matching for Secure Flight outages. TSA has assumed from the private sector the responsibility for pre-flight screening of passengers and certain non-traveling individuals against the Federal Government watchlist, as required by sec. 4012(a) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004,
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-Day notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), OMB control number 1652-0053, abstracted below that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a revision in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collections of information that make up this ICR include: (1) Applications from entities that wish to become Certified Cargo Screening Facilities (CCSFs), Third-Party Canine-Cargo (3PK9-C) Certifiers or Certified Cargo Screening Program-Canine (CCSP-K9) Holders; (2) personally identifiable information to allow TSA to conduct security threat assessments (STA) on certain individuals employed by the CCSFs, 3PK9-C Certifiers, Certified Cargo Screening Facilities-K9 (CCSF-K9) and those authorized to conduct 3PK9-C Program activities; (3) standard security program or submission of a proposed modified security program or amendment to a security program by CCSFs and CCSF-K9s; or standards provided by TSA or submission of a proposed modified standard by 3PK9-C Certifiers; (5) recordkeeping requirements for CCSFs, CCSF-K9s and 3PK9-C Certifiers; (6) designation of a Security Coordinator (SC) by CCSFs and CCSF-K9s; and (7) significant security concerns detailing information of incidents, suspicious activities, and/or threat information by CCSFs, 3PK9-C Certifiers, and CCSP-K9 Holders.
Send your comments by February 11, 2019.
Comments may be emailed to
Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-2062.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;
(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.
Section 1941 of the TSA Modernization Act
Facilities-based CCSFs may screen cargo off-airport and must implement measures to ensure a secure chain of custody from the point of screening to the point at which the cargo is tendered to the aircraft operator. A CCSF-K9 is an inherently mobile capability that can screen cargo at the facility owned and operated by one of TSA's regulated entities. All CCSFs are required to engage TSA to assess whether a person or entity meets the standards of their security program. The ICR allows TSA to collect several categories of information as explained below.
In this ICR, TSA currently collects the following information:
(1) CCSF Applications. Under TSA regulations, an applicant is required to submit an application to become a CCSF at least 90 days before the intended date of operation, the contents of which are contained in 49 CFR 1549.7. In addition, once certified as a CCSF, the CCSF is required to submit any changes to the application information as they occur. CCSFs must renew their certification every 36 months by submitting a new complete application. CCSF applicants are required to provide TSA access to their records, equipment, and facilities necessary for TSA to conduct an eligibility assessment. (49 CFR 1549.7).
(2) STA Applications. TSA regulations require that CCSF applicants ensure that individuals performing cargo screening and related functions, and their supervisors have completed an STA conducted by TSA. In addition, TSA regulations require CCSF Security Coordinators and their alternates to successfully have completed an STA. TSA regulations further require these individuals to submit personally identifiable information so that TSA can perform STAs.
(3) Security Programs. TSA requires CCSFs to accept and operate under a standard security program provided by TSA, or submit a proposed modified security program or amendment(s) to the designated TSA official for approval initially and periodically thereafter as required. (49 CFR 1549.7).
(4) Recordkeeping. Require CCSFs to maintain records of compliance and make them available for TSA inspection (49 CFR 1549.105).
TSA is revising the collection in response to changing conditions in the air cargo industry. To meet the demand of the enhanced air cargo screening standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and requirements of the TSA Modernization Act,
Due to the additional development of the 3PK9-C Program, the current information collection request will be revised to include the following:
(1a) 3PK9-C Certifier Applications. TSA will require initial applications and changes to information in the application for any 3PK9-C Certifier, intending to operate under the 3PK9-C Certifier Order.
(1b) CCSF-K9 Applications. Under TSA regulations, an applicant is required to submit an application to become a CCSF at least 90 days before the intended date of operation unless otherwise authorized by TSA. The contents of the initial application are contained in 49 CFR 1549.7. In addition, once certified as a CCSF, the CCSF-K9 will be required to submit an Operational Implementation Plan (OIP), described within the CCSP-K9 and any changes to the application information as they occur. CCSF-K9s must renew their certification every 36 months by submitting a new complete application. CCSF-K9 applicants will be required to provide TSA access to their records, equipment, and facilities necessary for TSA to conduct an eligibility assessment. (49 CFR 1549.7).
(2) STA Applications. TSA regulations require that individuals performing screening and related functions, their supervisors, those authorized to conduct 3PK9-C Program activities, and people supporting these functions successfully have completed an STA conducted by TSA. In addition, TSA regulations require CCSF Security Coordinators and their alternates to successfully have completed an STA. TSA regulations further require these individuals to submit personally identifiable information so that TSA can perform STAs.
(3a) Security Programs. TSA will require CCSF-K9s to accept and operate under a standard security program provided by TSA, or submit a proposed modified security program or amendment(s) to the designated TSA official for approval initially and periodically thereafter as required. (49 CFR 1549.7).
(3b) The 3PK9-C Certifier Order. TSA will require 3PK9-C Certifiers to accept standards provided by TSA, or submit a proposed modified standard to the designated TSA official for approval initially and periodically thereafter as required.
(4) Recordkeeping. TSA will require 3PK9-C Certifiers and CCSF-K9s to maintain records of compliance with the Order and the CFR, making them available for TSA inspection (49 CFR 1549.105).
(5) Significant Security Concerns Information. TSA will require 3PK9-C Certifiers, and CCSP-K9 Holders to report to TSA incidents, suspicious activities, and/or threat information.
(6) Security Coordinator. TSA will require 3PK9-C Certifiers and CCSF-K9s to provide the name and contact information of the Security Coordinator (SC) and one or more designated alternates at the corporate or ownership level.
As noted above, TSA has identified several separate information collections under this ICR. The 3PK9-C Certifiers information collections represent an estimated average of 79 respondents annually, including security threat assessment applicants for 3PK9-C, for an average annual hour burden of 2,555 hours. The CCSP-K9 Holder and Certified 3PK9-C Team information collections represent an estimated average of 567 respondents annually, including security threat assessment
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 14, 2019.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
On June 11, 2018, we published a
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the Service; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Service enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Service minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We use FWS Form 3-2405 (Self-Clearing Check-In Permit) to collect user information on hunting and fishing on refuges. This form offers a self-check-in feature not found on other similar forms, reducing the number of staffed check-in stations. We found this method increases game harvest reporting and provides better estimates of total numbers of game harvested. This form also requests users to report other species observed, data then used by refuge staff and state agencies for managing wildlife populations. Not all refuges will use this form and some refuges may collect the identical information in a nonform format (meaning there is no designated form associated with the collection of information). We collect:
• Information on the visitor (name, address, and contact information). We use this information to identify the visitor or driver/passengers of a vehicle while on the refuge. Having this information readily available is critical in a search and rescue situation. We do not maintain or record this information.
• Information on whether or not hunters/anglers were successful (number and type of harvest/caught).
• Purpose of visit (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, auto touring, birding, hiking, boating/canoeing, visitor center, special event, environmental education class, volunteering, other recreation).
• Species observed.
• Date of visit.
The above information is a vital tool in meeting refuge objectives and maintaining quality visitor experiences. It helps us:
• Administer and monitor the quality of visitor programs and facilities on refuges.
• Minimize resource disturbance, manage healthy game populations, and ensure the protection of fish and wildlife species through the check-in/out process.
• Assist in Statewide wildlife management and enforcement and develop reliable estimates of the number of key game fish and wildlife, like the Louisiana black bear (a recently delisted species).
• Determine facility and program needs and budgets based on user demand for resources.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 14, 2019.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Noel B. Pavlovic by email at
The USGS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, provides the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the USGS; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the USGS enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the USGS minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Idaho Falls District Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as indicated below.
The RAC will meet in Idaho Falls, Idaho, January 15-16, 2019.
The Idaho Falls District RAC will meet January 15-16 at the BLM Idaho Falls District office located at 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401. On January 15, the new member orientation will begin at 9:00 a.m. The entire RAC will convene at 1:00 p.m. and adjourn around 4:30 p.m. On January 16, the RAC will convene at 8:30 a.m. and adjourn around 2:30 p.m. The public comment period will be from 2:00-2:30 p.m. The BLM welcomes members of the public to attend the RAC meeting.
Sarah Wheeler, RAC Coordinator, Idaho Falls District, 1405 Hollipark Dr., Idaho Falls, ID 83401. Telephone: (208) 524-7550. Email:
The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in the BLM Idaho Falls District, which covers eastern Idaho.
Meeting topics include a recreational fee proposal for the Jensen Cabin on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest, recreation fee increase discussion on the Upper Snake Field Office, possible recreation enhancements to Henry's Lake and a 2018 Fire Update. On Jan. 16, the group will break out into a working session to determine how the Idaho Falls District can better implement Secretary's Orders 3356 and 3366. Other topics, such as management plans for existing wilderness areas, and wild horses may be discussed if time permits.
All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each Council meeting has time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.
Before including your phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 CFR 1784.4-2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plat of survey of the following described lands was officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Arizona State Office, Phoenix, Arizona, on the date indicated. The survey announced in this notice is necessary for the management of lands administered by the agency indicated.
This plat will be available for inspection in the Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land Management, One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4427. Protests of the survey should be sent to the Arizona State Director at the above address.
Gerald Davis, Chief Cadastral Surveyor of Arizona; (602) 417-9558;
The supplemental plat, in one sheet, showing the amended lotting in section 31, Township 9 North, Range 23 East, accepted November 20, 2018, and officially filed November 21, 2018, for Group 9115, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the United States Forest Service.
A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these surveys must file a written notice of protest within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication with the Arizona State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest.
A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be filed with the State Director within 30 days after the protest is filed. Before including your address, or other personal information in your protest, please be aware that your entire protest, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of realty action.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has examined certain public lands in Pinal County, Arizona, and has found them suitable for classification for lease or conveyance to the Pinal County Board of Supervisors under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purpose Act (R&PP), as amended, the Taylor Grazing Act, and Executive Order No. 6910. The lands will be used as a regional park. The lands consist of approximately 498.04 acres, must conform to the official plat of survey, and are legally described below.
Submit written comments regarding this proposed classification on or before January 28, 2019. In the absence of any adverse comments, the classification will become effective on February 11, 2019.
Comments may be mailed or hand delivered to Realty Specialist JoAnn Goodlow at the BLM Lower Sonoran Field Office, 21605 North 7th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85027. Comments may also be faxed to 623-580-5580. The BLM will not consider comments received via telephone calls or email. Detailed information including, but not limited to, a proposed development and management plan and documentation relating to compliance with applicable environmental and cultural resource laws, is available for review during business hours, 7:45 a.m. to 4 p.m. Mountain Time, Monday through Friday, except during Federal holidays, at this same street address.
JoAnn Goodlow, Realty Specialist, telephone: 623-580-5548, email:
The Pinal County Board of Supervisors has not applied for more than the 6,400-acre limitation for recreation uses in a year (or 640 acres if a nonprofit corporation or association), nor more than 640 acres for each of the programs involving public resources other than recreation.
The Pinal County Board of Supervisors has submitted a statement in compliance with the regulations at 43 CFR 2741.4(b). The Pinal County Board of Supervisors proposes to use the land as a regional park. The park would provide recreational opportunities such as hiking, mountain biking, rock climbing, tent camping, an equestrian area, and picnic locations.
The lands examined and identified as suitable for lease or conveyance under the R&PP Act are legally described as:
The areas described aggregate 498.04 acres.
The lands are not needed for any Federal purposes.
Lease or conveyance of the lands for recreational or public purposes use is consistent with the BLM Lower Sonoran Resource Management Plan, dated September 2012, and would be in the national interest.
All interested parties will receive a copy of this notice once it is published in the
Upon publication of this notice in the
The lease or conveyance of the land, when issued, will be subject to the following terms, conditions, and reservations:
1. A right-of-way thereon for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 391; 43 U.S.C. 945).
2. Provisions of the R&PP Act and all applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior.
3. All mineral deposits in the land so patented, and the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and regulations as established by the Secretary of the Interior are reserved to the United States, together with all necessary access and exit rights.
4. Lease or conveyance of the parcel is subject to valid existing rights.
5. An appropriate indemnification clause protecting the United States from claims arising out of the lessee's/patentee's use, occupancy, or occupations on the leased/patented lands.
6. Any other reservations that the authorized officer determines appropriate to ensure public access and proper management of Federal lands and interests therein.
Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the BLM State Director or other authorized official of the Department of the Interior, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. The lands will not be offered for conveyance until after the classification becomes effective.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in any comment, be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 CFR 2741.5.
National Park Service, Interior.
Meeting notice.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of
The Commission will meet: Monday, February 4, 2019; Monday, June 3, 2019; and Monday, September 9, 2019. All scheduled meetings will begin at 1:00 p.m. and will end by 4:00 p.m. (Eastern).
The February 4, 2019, and June 3, 2019, meetings will be held at the headquarters conference room, Acadia National Park, 20 McFarland Hill Drive, Bar Harbor, Maine 04609. The September 9, 2019, meeting will be held at Schoodic Education and Research Center, Winter Harbor, Maine 04693.
Michael Madell, Deputy Superintendent, Acadia National Park, P.O. Box 177, Bar Harbor, Maine 04609, telephone (207) 288-8701 or email
The Commission was established by section 103 of Public Law 99-420, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 341 note), and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 1-16). The Commission advises the Secretary and the NPS on matters relating to the management and development of Acadia National Park, including but not limited to, the acquisition of lands and interests in lands (including conservation easements on islands) and the termination of rights of use and occupancy.
The meetings are open to the public. Interested persons may make oral or written presentations to the Commission or file written statements. Such requests should be made to the Superintendent at least seven days prior to the meeting.
The Commission meeting locations may change based on inclement weather or exceptional circumstances. If a meeting location is changed, the Superintendent will issue a press release and use local newspapers to announce the change.
5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are announcing our intention to request renewed approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to continue collecting information for Permit Applications—Minimum Requirements for Legal, Financial, Compliance, and Related Information. The information collection request describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden and cost.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 14, 2019.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Harry Payne by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provides the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of OSMRE; (2) is the estimate of burden accurate; (3) how might OSMRE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) how might OSMRE minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authorities for this action are the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1201
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice of investigation and scheduling of a public hearing.
Following receipt on November 9, 2018, of a request from the United States Trade Representative (USTR) for a report containing advice and an assessment, the Commission instituted Investigation Nos. TA-131-045 and TPA-105-006,
All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing rooms, are located in the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Project Leader David Guberman (202-708-1396 or
More specifically, the USTR, under authority delegated by the President and pursuant to section 131 of the Trade Act of 1974, requested that the Commission provide a report containing its advice as to the probable economic effect of providing duty-free treatment for imports of currently dutiable products from the UK on (i) industries in the United States producing like or directly competitive products, and (ii) consumers. The USTR asked that the Commission's analysis consider each article in chapters 1 through 97 of the
In addition, the USTR requested that the Commission prepare an assessment, as described in section 105(a)(2)(B)(i)(III) of the TPA Act, of the probable economic effects of eliminating tariffs on imports from the UK of those agricultural products described in the list attached to the USTR's request letter on (i) industries in the United States producing the products concerned, and (ii) the U.S. economy as a whole. The USTR's request letter and list of agricultural products are posted on the Commission's website at
For the purposes of these analyses, the USTR requested that the Commission assume the UK will no longer be a Member State of the European Union. The USTR indicated that those sections of the Commission's report that relate to advice and assessment of probable economic effects will be classified. The USTR also indicated that he considers the Commission's report to be an interagency memorandum that will contain pre-decisional advice and be subject to the deliberative process privilege. As requested, the Commission will provide its report to the USTR as soon as possible, and no later than May 8, 2019.
The Commission may include some or all of the confidential business information submitted in the course of this investigation in the report it sends to the USTR. Additionally, all information, including confidential business information, submitted in this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel (a) for cybersecurity purposes or (b) in monitoring user activity on U.S. government classified networks. The Commission will not otherwise disclose any confidential business information in a way that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.
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, a motion for temporary relief, and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Extang Corporation and Laurmark Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a BAK Industries on December 7, 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 pickup truck folding bed cover systems and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents: Stehlen Automotive of Walnut, CA; SyneticUSA of Pico Rivera, CA; Topline Autoparts, Inc. of Hacienda Heights, CA; Velocity Concepts Inc. of Hacienda Heights, CA; JL Concepts Inc. of Walnut, CA; DT Trading Inc. of Alhambra, CA; Wenzhou Kouvi Hardware Products Co., Ltd. of China; Syppo Marketing, Inc. of City of Industry, CA; Apex Auto Parts Mfg. Inc. of City of Industry, CA; Ningbo Huadian Cross Country Automobile Accessories Co., Ltd. of China; and Sunwood Industries Co., Ltd. of China. The complainants request that the Commission grant temporary relief in the form of temporary cease and desist
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. 3356) 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.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on October 3, 2018, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Juul Labs, Inc. of San Francisco, California. A letter supplementing the complaint was filed on October 17, 2018. An amended complaint was filed on October 26, 2018. The amended complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic nicotine delivery systems and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,070,669 (“the '669 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,076,139 (“the '139 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,045,568 (“the '568 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,058,130 (“the '130 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 10,104,915 (“the '915 patent”). The amended complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainants requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The amended complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202)
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, and 21 of the '669 patent; claims 1-4, 9-11, 13, 14, 19-21, 24, 28, and 29 of the '139 patent; claims 1-3, 5-9, 12, and 17-20 of the '568 patent; claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 16, 19, 21, and 27 of the '130 patent; and claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 18-23, and 27 of the '915 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “nicotine vaporizer devices and the associated pods sold for use with the devices, and components thereof”;
(3) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties or other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);
(4) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are: Juul Labs, Inc., 560 20th Street, San Francisco, CA 94107.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(5) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
December 7, 2018.
Eric Mozie, Director of Human Resources, or Ronald Johnson, Senior Human Resources Specialist, U.S. International Trade Commission (202) 205-2651.
The Chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission has appointed the following individuals to serve on the Commission's Performance Review Board (PRB):
This notice is published in the
By order of the Commission.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before January 14, 2019. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before January 14, 2019.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on November 05, 2018, Siegfried USA, LLC, 33 Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances to manufacture bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) for distribution to its customers.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before January 14, 2019. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before January 14, 2019.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on October 10, 2018, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., 2898 Manufacturers Road, Greensboro, North Carolina 27406-4600 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class of controlled substance:
The company plans to import the FDA approved drug product in finished dosage form for distribution to its customers. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2).
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before February 11, 2019.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on November 22, 2017, Eli-Elsohly Laboratories, Mahmoud A. Elsohly Ph.D., 5 Industrial Park Drive, Oxford, Mississippi 38655 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances for product development and reference standards. In reference to drug codes 7360 (marihuana) and 7370 (THC), the company plans to isolate these controlled substances from procured 7350 (marihuana extract). In reference to drug code 7360 (marihuana), no cultivation activities are authorized for this registration. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before February 11, 2019.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on July 16, 2018, Cambrex High Point Inc., 4180 Mendenhall Oaks Parkway, High Point, North Carolina 27265 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the above listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before January 14, 2019. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before January 14, 2019.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on August 14, 2018, Noramco Inc., 500 Swedes Landing Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19801-4417 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import phenylacetone (8501), and poppy straw concentrate (9670) to bulk manufacture other controlled substances for distribution to its customers. In reference to drug codes 7360 (marihuana) and 7370 (THC), the company plans to import a synthetic cannabidiol and a synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol. No other activity for these drug codes is authorized for this registration. Placement of these drug codes onto the company's registration does not translate into automatic approval of subsequent permit applications to import controlled substances.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before January 14, 2019. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before January 14, 2019.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on November 7, 2018, Mylan Technologies Inc., 110 Lake Street, Saint Albans, Vermont 05478 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in finished dosage form (FDF) from foreign sources for analytical testing and clinical trials in which the foreign FDF will be compared to the company's own domestically-manufactured FDF. This analysis is required to allow the company to export domestically manufactured FDF to foreign markets.
On December 4, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed the complaint in this Clean Water Act case against the Defendants on September 9, 2016. The complaint alleged that the Defendants, Grimmel Industries, LLC, Rensselaer Iron & Steel, Inc., and Toby Grimmel, violated the Multi-Sector General Permits issued by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation concurrently under Section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 1342(b). The Complaint sought civil penalties and injunctive relief for eleven alleged violations of the permits, including effluent discharges in excess of permitted limits; failure to comply with corrective action requirements; inadequate permit coverage and stormwater pollution prevention plans; improper implementation of stormwater pollution prevention plans; failure to conduct quarterly visual monitoring; failure to timely submit reports; failure to perform annual dry weather flow monitoring; inadequate responses to benchmark exceedances; failure to train employees;
Under the Proposed Consent Decree, the United States will dismiss Defendant Toby Grimmel. The remaining Defendants must revise their stormwater management plans and investigate several drainage features at the facility. The remaining Defendants must also eliminate stormwater discharges from a catch basin under a material storage pile; remove scrap metal and other waste material accumulated under a pier at the facility; and install a berm on part of the site. The remaining Defendants must pay $100,000 in civil penalties. The proposed consent decree will resolve all Clean Water Act claims alleged in this action by the United States against Defendants.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Enforcement Section, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $9.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Request for nominations for membership on the Workforce Information Advisory Council.
The Department of Labor invites interested parties to submit nominations for individuals to serve on the Workforce Information Advisory Council (WIAC) and announces the procedures for those nominations. From the nominations received, the Department will fill all 14 slots on the Council. Information regarding the WIAC can be found at
Nominations for individuals to serve on the WIAC must be submitted (postmarked, if sending by mail; submitted electronically; or received, if hand delivered) by February 11, 2019.
You may submit nominations and supporting materials described in this
Steve Rietzke, Division of National Programs, Tools, and Technical Assistance, Office of Workforce Investment (address above); by telephone at (202) 693-3912 (this is not toll-free numbers) or by email at
Section 15 of the Wagner-Peyser Act, 29 U.S.C. 49
The statute, as amended, requires the Secretary, acting through the Commissioner of Labor Statistics and the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, to formally consult at least twice annually with the WIAC to address: (1) Evaluation and improvement of the nationwide workforce and labor market information system established by the Wagner-Peyser Act, and of the statewide systems that comprise the nationwide system, and (2) how the Department of Labor and the States will cooperate in the management of those systems. The Secretary, acting through the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), and in consultation with the WIAC and appropriate federal agencies, must also develop a two-year plan for management of the labor market information system. The statute generally prescribes how the plan is to be developed and implemented, outlines the contents of the plan, and requires the Secretary to submit the plan to designated authorizing committees in the House and Senate.
By law, the Secretary must “seek, review, and evaluate” recommendations from the WIAC, and respond in writing to the Council. The WIAC must make written recommendations to the Secretary on the evaluation and improvement of the workforce and labor market information system, including recommendations for the 2-year plan. The 2-year plan, in turn, must describe WIAC recommendations and the extent to which the plan incorporates them.
The Department anticipates that the WIAC will accomplish its objectives by, for example: (1) Studying workforce and labor market information issues; (2) seeking and sharing information on innovative approaches, new technologies, and data to inform employment, skills training, and workforce and economic development decision making and policy; and (3) advising the Secretary on how the workforce and labor market information system can best support workforce development, planning, and program development.
Pertinent information about the WIAC, including recommendations, reports, background information, agendas, and meeting minutes, can be
The Wagner-Peyser Act, at section 15(d)(2)(B), requires the WIAC to have 14 members, appointed by the Secretary, consisting of:
(1) Four members who are representatives of lead State agencies with responsibility for workforce investment activities, or State agencies described in Wagner-Peyser Act section 4 (agency designated or authorized by Governor to cooperate with the Secretary of Labor), who have been nominated by such agencies or by a national organization that represents such agencies;
(2) Four members who are representatives of the State workforce and labor market information directors affiliated with the State agencies responsible for the management and oversight of the workforce and labor market information system as described in Wagner-Peyser Act Section 15(e)(2), who have been nominated by the directors;
(3) One member who is a representative of providers of training services under WIOA section 122 (Identification of Eligible Providers of Training Services);
(4) One member who is a representative of economic development entities;
(5) One member who is a representative of businesses, who has been nominated by national business organizations or trade associations;
(6) One member who is a representative of labor organizations, who has been nominated by a national labor federation;
(7) One member who is a representative of local workforce development boards, who has been nominated by a national organization representing such boards; and
(8) One member who is a representative of research entities that use workforce and labor market information.
The Secretary must ensure that the membership of the WIAC is geographically diverse, and that no two members appointed under clauses (1), (2), and (7), above, represent the same State. Each member will be appointed for a term that may be 2 or 3 years in order to establish a rotation of the members. The Secretary will not appoint a member for any more than two consecutive terms, which allows all current WIAC members to be re-nominated if they still meet all of the other membership requirements.
Any member whom the Secretary appoints to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the predecessor's term will be appointed only for the remainder of that term. Members of the Council will serve on a voluntary and generally uncompensated basis, but will be reimbursed for travel expenses to attend WIAC meetings, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by the Federal travel regulations.
The WIAC is a permanent advisory council and, as such, is not governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act's (FACA) Section 14, on termination of advisory committees. In other respects, however, WIAC membership will be consistent with the FACA requirement that membership be “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed” (5 U.S.C. App. 5(b)(2)), as specified in Wagner-Peyser section 15(2)(B) & (C), and the requirement that members come from “a cross-section of those directly affected, interested, and qualified, as appropriate to the nature and functions” of the WIAC (41 CFR 102-3.60(b)(3)). Under the FACA regulation, the composition of the WIAC will, therefore, depend upon several factors, including: (i) The WIAC's mission; (ii) the geographic, ethnic, social, economic, or scientific impact of the WIAC's recommendations; (iii) the types of specific perspectives required; (iv) the need to obtain divergent points of view on the issues before the WIAC, such as those of consumers, technical experts, the public at large, academia, business, or other sectors; and (v) the relevance of State, local, or tribal governments to the development of the WIAC's recommendations (41 CFR 102-3, Subpart B, Appendix A.).
To the extent permitted by FACA and other applicable laws, WIAC membership should also be consistent with achieving the greatest impact, scope, and credibility among diverse stakeholders. The diversity in such membership includes, but is not limited to, race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
• A copy of the nominee's resume or curriculum vitae;
• A cover letter that provides your reason(s) for nominating the individual, the constituency area that they represent (as outlined above in the WIAC membership identification discussion), and their particular expertise for contributing to the national policy discussion on: (1) The evaluation and improvement of the nationwide workforce and labor market information system and statewide systems that comprise the nationwide system, and (2) how the Department of Labor and the States will cooperate in the management of those systems, including programs that produce employment-related statistics and State and local workforce and labor market information; and
• Contact information for the nominee (name, title, business address, business phone, fax number, and business email address).
In addition, the cover letter must state the nomination is being made in response to this
Pursuant to the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 49
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
January 30, 2019, 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Attendance information for the meeting will be forthcoming on the website:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
March 19, 2019; 9:00 a.m.—3:00 p.m. (EDT).
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 6, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
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 910.000, Identity and Document Verification Services.
These revisions will become effective without further notice on January 14, 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
The changes are being made to:
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. Allow for the scanning of Government issued IDs at retail locations for the purposes of verifying identity for customers who need postal products and services.
c. To enhance the Postal Service's existing remote identity proofing with a Phone Validation and One-Time Passcode solution.
The new Address Matching Database is being implemented to identify, prevent and mitigate fraudulent activity within the Change of Address and Hold Mail processes. The 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 day time frame; and confirm the presence of a Hold Mail request when a Change of Address request is submitted during a 30 day time frame. The Address Matching Database will also send confirmation notifications to customers who submit a Hold Mail request.
The capability to scan Government issued IDs is being implemented to verify identity when requesting government-issued ID to reduce fraudulent cases surrounding USPS programs and the disposition of certain customer mail services. This will provide the Postal Service the ability to capture and store information provided in the 2-Dimensional barcode on government issued photo IDs (
The Phone Validation and One-Time Passcode solution is being implemented to enhance the Postal Service's existing remote identity proofing solution and to detect, to the best extent possible, the presentation of fraudulent identities by a malicious user. The Postal Service's objective in implementing the Phone Validation and One-Time Passcode solution is to ensure the user is who they claim to be to a stated level of certitude. The validation and verification of the minimum attributes necessary is used to accomplish identity proofing.
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 910.000, Identity and Document Verification Services, provided below in its entirety, is as follows:
USPS 910.000, Identity and Document Verification Services.
None.
USPS Marketing, Headquarters; Integrated Business Solutions Services Centers; and contractor sites.
Chief Information Officer and Executive Vice President, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260-1500; (202) 268-6900.
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, 404, and 411.
1. To provide services related to identity and document verification services.
2. To issue and manage public key certificates, user registration, email addresses, and/or electronic postmarks.
3. To provide secure mailing services.
4. To protect business and personal communications.
5. To enhance personal identity and privacy protections.
6. To improve the customer experience and facilitate the provision of accurate and reliable delivery information.
7. To identify, prevent, or mitigate the effects of fraudulent transactions.
8. To support other Federal Government Agencies by providing authorized services.
9. To ensure the quality and integrity of records.
10. To enhance the customer experience by improving the security of Change of Address (COA) and Hold Mail processes.
11. To protect USPS customers from becoming potential victims of mail fraud and identity theft.
12. To identify and mitigate potential fraud in the COA and Hold Mail processes.
13. To verify a customer's identity when applying for COA and Hold Mail services.
14. To provide an audit trail for COA and Hold Mail requests (linked to the identity of the submitter).
15. To enhance remote identity proofing with a Phone Validation and One-Time Passcode solution.
1. Customers who apply for identity and document verification services.
2. Customers who may require identity verification for Postal products and services.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Customers.
Standard routine uses 1. through 7., 10., and 11. apply.
By customer name, customer ID(s), distinguished name, certificate serial number, receipt number, and transaction date.
1. Records related to Pending Public Key Certificate Application Files are added as received to an electronic database, moved to the authorized certificate file when they are updated with the required data, and records not updated within 90 days from the date of receipt are destroyed.
2. Records related to the Public Key Certificate Directory are retained in an electronic database, are consistently updated, and records are destroyed as they are superseded or deleted.
3. Records related to the Authorized Public Key Certificate Master File are retained in an electronic database for the life of the authorized certificate.
4. When the certificate is revoked, it is moved to the certificate revocation file.
5. The Public Key Certificate Revocation List is cut off at the end of each calendar year and records are retained 30 years from the date of cutoff. Records may be retained longer with customer consent or request.
6. Other records in this system are retained 7 years, unless retained longer by request of the customer.
7. Records related to electronic signatures are retained in an electronic database for 3 years.
8. Other categories of records are retained for a period of up to 30 days.
9. Driver's License data will be retained for 5 years.
10. COA and Hold Mail transactional data will be retained for 5 years.
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 controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
Key pairs are protected against cryptanalysis by encrypting the private key and by using a shared secret algorithm to protect the encryption key, and the certificate authority key is stored in a separate, tamperproof, hardware device. Activities are audited, and archived information is protected from corruption, deletion, and modification.
For authentication services and electronic postmark, electronic data is transmitted via secure socket layer (SSL) encryption to a secured data center. Computer media are stored within a secured, locked room within the facility. Access to the database is limited to the system administrator, database administrator, and designated support personnel. Paper forms are stored within a secured area within locked cabinets.
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 other information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries in writing to the system
None.
December 22, 2017,
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 6, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 6, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
On July 3, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) issued an order pursuant to its authority under Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS (“Sub-Penny Rule”)
The Exchange now seeks a six month extension of the exemption, which would be until June 30, 2019.
The limited and temporary exemption extended by this Order is subject to modification or revocation if at any time the Commission determines that such action is necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Responsibility for compliance with any applicable provisions of the Federal securities laws must rest with the persons relying on the exemptions that are the subject of this Order.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 23, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) issued an order pursuant to its authority under Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS (“Sub-Penny Rule”)
The Exchange now seeks to extend the exemptions until June 30, 2019.
The limited and temporary exemption extended by this Order is subject to
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 Rule 15 relating to the Reference Price for Exchange-listed securities. 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 Rule 15 relating to a security's Reference Price that is used in determining whether to publish a pre-opening indication prior to an opening auction in a security that is already listed on the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to use the “Official Closing Price” (“OCP”) rather than the last reported sale price
Rule 15(a) states that a pre-opening indication will include the security and the price range within which the opening price is anticipated to occur and that a pre-opening indication is published via the securities information processor and the Exchange's proprietary data feeds. Rule 15(b) provides that a designated market maker (“DMM”) will publish a pre-opening indication either: (i) Before a security opens if the opening transaction on the Exchange is anticipated to be at a price that represents a change of more than the “Applicable Price Range,” as specified in Rule 15(d),
Rule 15(c)(1)(A) specifies that the Reference Price for a security (other than an American Depository Receipt) that is already listed on the Exchange will be the security's last reported sale price on the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to update the terminology used in Rule 15(c)(1)(A) to reference the term OCP rather than reference a security's “last reported sale price.” When the OCP is determined under Rule 123C(1)(e)(i),
The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to amend Rule 15(c)(1)(A) to reference the OCP instead of the last reported sale price because using the OCP as determined under Rules 123C(1)(e)(i), (ii), or (iii) as the Reference Price would cover all potential contingencies and reflect the most recent valuation in a security, including situations where the Exchange is unable to conduct a closing auction due to a systems or technical issue. For example, if for a security the last reported sale price on the Exchange was at 2:00 p.m., and then the Exchange uses either Rule 123C(1)(e)(ii) or (iii) to determine an OCP, the Exchange believes that the OCP that is determined as of the close of trading is more reflective of the value of such security as compared to the Exchange's last reported sale price at 2:00 p.m.
Similarly, if a security is the subject of a non-standard corporate action, such as a merger or recapitalization, currently, the last reported sale price would be adjusted based on the publicly disclosed terms of the corporate action. For example, assume a listed company is being recapitalized in a merger transaction in which the Exchange-listed security (Class A) is exchanged for a cash dividend of $10 per share of Class A stock plus two shares of the common stock of a new holding company (New Holdco Common). If the Class A stock is trading at a price of $90 prior to the corporate action, the Reference Price under Rule 15(c)(1)(A) for each share of New Holdco Common Stock would be $40 per share (
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes that using the OCP instead of the last reported sale price on the Exchange would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would align Rule 15(c)(1)(A) with how the Exchange determines the OCP for a security and would cover all potential contingencies if there is no closing transaction on the Exchange, including if the Exchange is unable to conduct a closing transaction due to a systems or technical issue. The proposed amendment would maintain that the Reference Price is the price of a last sale of at least one round lot, and therefore promotes just and equitable principles of trade because it is consistent with Rule 123C(1)(e)(i) which requires that the OCP be either the price of the closing transaction, or the last-sale eligible trade on the Exchange when there is no closing transaction or the closing transaction is less than one round lot. The proposal would, therefore, continue to ensure that the Reference Price is an accurate indicator for determining whether a pre-opening indication of interest should be published. The proposed amendment would also enable the determination of a Reference Price under Rule 15(c)(1)(A) to account for when the OCP is determined via one of the contingency procedures set forth in Rules 123C(1)(e)(ii) and (iii). The Exchange believes that referencing the OCP rather than the last reported sale price would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would result in a Reference Price that is more reflective of the most recent value of the security value because the OCP as determined under Rules 123C(1)(e)(ii) or (iii) would be a price determined as of the close of trading, rather than the Exchange's last reported sale price, which may occur earlier in the trading day.
The Exchange believes that amending Rule 15(c)(1)(A) to specify that the OCP would be adjusted as applicable based on the publicly disclosed terms of a corporate action would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by promoting transparency in Exchange rules of how the Reference Price is determined if a security listed on the Exchange is subject to a corporate action. The Exchange believes it is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to adjust the OCP that would be used as a Reference Price under Rule 15(c)(1)(A) based on the publicly disclosed terms of a corporate action as such adjusted price would better reflect the price of the security for purposes of the opening auction on the first day that a corporate action is in effect. The Exchange notes that the Reference Price is used as a trigger for determining whether to publish a pre-opening indication, and
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is designed to promote clarity and transparency in Exchange rules regarding how a Reference Price under Rule 15 is determined for an Exchange-listed security. The proposed rule change is therefore not designed to address any competitive concerns but rather inform member organizations that the OCP would be used as the Reference Price for listed securities, adjusted as applicable based on the publicly disclosed terms of a corporate action.
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) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will provide transparency to investors on the determination of the Reference Price for Exchange listed securities, which is used as the basis for determining when pre-opening indications will be published, as well as provide transparency on the adjustments that will be made to the Reference Price as a result of corporate actions. For these reasons, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 22, 2018, ICE Clear Europe Limited (“ICE Clear Europe”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
ICE Clear Europe proposes to amend its Liquidity Plan to reflect changes in its treasury arrangements and certain other enhancements.
ICE Clear Europe proposes to amend the Liquidity Plan to add a new Central Securities Depository (CSD) default scenario, which is defined as a CSD being unable to process settlements.
Other proposed updates and clarifications to the Liquidity Plan include: adding intra-day overdraft facilities to the sources used for the risk tolerance and risk appetite evaluations in the liquidity stress testing scenarios; eliminating references to an ICE Inc. (ICE Clear Europe's parent company) credit facility; in calculating the investment loss component of liquidity stress losses in clearing member default scenario, time deposits are assumed to have a 100% liquidity loss; for liquidity stress testing scenarios that look at cash invested with a one-day maturity, U.S. dollar investments in reverse repurchase agreements in assets denominated in Euro or pounds sterling will be excluded from available liquidity resources and cross-currency investments for Euro and British pounds sterling balances are not permitted; key risk and performance indicators used by ICE Clear Europe to determine if investments meet its credit and liquidity standards have been added; typographical errors corrected and a cross-reference to various treasury operating procedures was updated; and certain risk default scenarios have been removed.
ICE Clear Europe has also proposed changes related to its internal reporting process. Specifically, several weekly and monthly liquidity reports will no longer be sent to the Board Risk Committee and the Board. Instead, the Audit Committee will receive certain liquidity metrics, the Business Risk Committee will receive a liquidity management summary and other summary data, and the Board will receive collateral and investment data, certain liquidity metrics and assessments, and key risk and performance indicators.
Other proposed revisions to the Liquidity Plan include that the Executive Risk Committee, as opposed to the Business Control Committee, will review the plan annually and that aspects of the Liquidity Plan will be tested annually.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of a registered clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivatives agreements,
The Commission believes that the proposed changes described above, taken as a whole, should improve ICE Clear Europe's ability to monitor and test its liquidity in a variety of scenarios. First, by referring to AFIs generally, ICE Clear Europe can efficiently plan for the default by any AFI rather than having its plans linked to a particular financial institution. This gives ICE Clear Europe the ability to replace an AFI with another AFI without needing to first change the text of its Liquidity Plan. This in turn would promote ICE Clear Europe's ability manage the liquidity needed to promptly and accurately clear and settle securities transactions and to safeguard the securities and funds which are in its custody or control or for which it is responsible by helping to ensure that ICE Clear Europe always has an AFI to serve as an investment agent and/or custodian.
Similarly, the Commission believes that the other amendments described above serve to enhance the Liquidity Plan, thereby promoting prompt and accurate clearance and settlement and the safeguarding of funds and securities. For example, the Commission believes that adding a new default scenario to liquidity stress testing and clarifying the sources used to evaluate risk tolerance and appetite would enhance ICE Clear Europe's ability to use the Liquidity Plan to anticipate liquidity risks and the sources necessary to cope with such risks. Further, the Commission believes that excluding investments in repurchase agreements with foreign currency as collateral from available liquid resources would assist ICE Clear Europe in avoiding reliance on assets considered to contain more risk, thereby bolstering ICE Clear Europe's overall approach to liquidity management. Likewise, the Commission believes that the manner in which ICE Clear Europe has added to and revised its key risk and performance indicators would enhance the compliance tool used to test if investments made by investment agents meet credit and liquidity requirements. As a result, the Commission believes that these proposed changes to the Liquidity Plan would in turn assist ICE Clear Europe in maintaining a level of liquidity sufficient to promptly and accurately clear and settle transactions and safeguard securities and funds. The Commission therefore finds that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) requires in relevant part that a clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively measure, monitor, and manage the liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by it, including through liquidity testing and by holding qualified liquid resources.
As described above, ICE Clear Europe proposes to add a CSD default scenario to its stress testing procedures. The Commission believes that adding another default scenario would enhance ICE Clear Europe's Liquidity Plan by anticipating specifically how to prepare for a default of a key participant in the clearing process, thereby furthering ICE Clear Europe's ability to effectively measure, monitor, and manage its liquidity risk.
The Commission believes that the various other updates to the Liquidity Plan described above would help ICE Clear Europe to effectively measure, monitor, and manage its liquidity risk. For instance, clarifying in the Liquidity Plan that ICE Clear Europe has intra-day overdraft facilities to rely upon in various stress scenarios would explain with greater specificity what sources of liquidity are available to ICE Clear Europe to manage its liquidity risk. Additionally, as noted above, other changes to the Liquidity Plan include the fact that time deposits are assumed to have 100% liquidity loss similar to other unsecured investments and that in scenarios which include cash invested with a one day maturity, collateral underlying investments that are denominated in foreign currency are excluded from available liquid resources. The Commission believes that these changes would enhance ICE Clear Europe's ability to manage liquidity risk by specifying more clearly which resources constitute potential measures to manage liquidity risk for the purposes of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) and which resources do not.
As described above, the Liquidity Plan also updates the table of key performance indicators that it uses to determine if investments meet credit and liquidity standards. For instance, the Liquidity Plan now includes, among others, ratings checks for unsecured investments and repo balance per counterparty. The Commission believes the proposed changes to the key risk and performance indicators would enhance ICE Clear Europe's liquidity monitoring by giving it more tools to monitor investments and hence its liquidity.
As described above, ICE Clear Europe also is revising its reporting process so that certain reports would no longer be routinely provided to the Board but rather to the Audit and Business Risk Committees. The Commission believes these changes would enhance the Liquidity Plan by prioritizing reporting to the most relevant level. Additionally, ICE Clear Europe is revising its procedures so that certain testing is done on an annual rather than periodic basis, the Liquidity Plan is reviewed by the Executive Risk Committee, and certain irrelevant risk default scenarios have been removed. Overall, the Commission believes that these changes will enable ICE Clear Europe to efficiently measure and monitor its liquidity risk by ensuring that relevant scenarios are reviewed by appropriate staff on a regular basis.
As a result of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7).
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.
In its filing, ICE Clear Europe requested that the Commission grant accelerated approval of the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act.
The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act,
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Overseas Schools Advisory Council, Department of State, will hold its Annual Committee Meeting on Wednesday, January 16, 2019 from 1:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. at the Melrose Georgetown Hotel, Clifton Room, 2430 Pennsylvania Ave. A second meeting will be held on Thursday, January 17, 2019 from 9:00 a.m. until approximately 2:00 p.m. in Conference Room 1482, Department of State, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC The meetings are open to the public.
The Overseas Schools Advisory Council works closely with the U.S. business community in improving American-sponsored schools overseas that are assisted by the Department of State and attended by dependents of U.S. government employees, and the children of employees of U.S. corporations and foundations abroad.
These meetings will deal with issues related to the work and the support provided by the Overseas Schools Advisory Council to the American-sponsored overseas schools. There will be a report and discussion about the status of the Council-sponsored projects on child protection and special needs. Moreover, the Regional Education Officers in the Office of Overseas Schools will make presentations on the activities and initiatives in the American-sponsored overseas schools.
Members of the public may attend the meetings and join in the discussion, subject to the instructions of the Chair. Admission of public members will be limited to the seating available. Access to the Department of State is controlled, and individual building passes are required for all attendees. Persons who plan to attend should advise the office of Mr. Thomas Shearer, Department of State, Office of Overseas Schools, telephone 202-261-8200, prior to January 9, 2019. Each visitor will be asked to provide his/her date of birth and either driver's license or passport
Personal data is requested pursuant to Public Law 99-399 (Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986), as amended; Public Law 107-56 (USA PATRIOT Act); and Executive Order 13356. The purpose of the collection is to validate the identity of individuals who enter Department facilities. The data will be entered into the Visitor Access Control System (VACS-D) database. Please see the Security Records System of Records Notice (State-36) at
Any requests for reasonable accommodation should be made at the time of registration. All such requests will be considered, however, requests made after January 7 might not be possible to fill. All attendees must use the 21st Street entrance to the building for Thursday's meeting.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of availability for record of decision.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing this notice to advise the public that it has published a Record of Decision (ROD) signed by the FAA and the United States Air Force for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS evaluated proposed Airfield Safety Enhancement Project at Tucson International Airport (TUS), Tucson, Pima County, Arizona.
David B. Kessler, AICP, Regional Environmental Protection Specialist, AWP-610.1, Office of Airports, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region, 777 South Aviation Boulevard, Suite 150, El Segundo, California 90245, Telephone: 424-405-7315.
The FAA as lead agency, along with the United States Air Force, as a cooperating agency on behalf of the United States Air Force and the National Guard Bureau, have completed and are publishing a Record of Decision (ROD) for proposed improvements and various land transactions identified at TUS. The ROD was prepared pursuant to Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1505.2.
The FAA published its Final EIS for these proposed improvements on August 31, 2018. The FAA prepared the Final EIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council of Environmental Quality implementing regulations, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, FAA Order 1050.1F, and FAA Order 5050.4B. FAA assessed the potential environmental impacts of the Airfield Safety Enhancement Project (ASEP), as well as the No Action Alternative where the FAA would make no improvements at TUS.
In the Final EIS, the FAA identified the ASEP as the preferred alternative in meeting the purpose and need for enhancement of safety at TUS. The ASEP includes relocation of Runway 11R/29L (proposed to be 10,996 feet long by 150 feet wide); the demolition of the existing Runway 11R/29L; the construction of a new center parallel and connecting taxiway system; acquisition of land for the runway object-free area, runway safety area, and the runway protection zone from Air Force Plant (AFP) 44. The ASEP also includes relocation of navigational aids and development and/or modification of associated arrival and departure procedures for the relocated runway. The ASEP also includes demolition of 12 Earth Covered Magazines (ECMs) on AFP 44 and their replacement elsewhere on AFP 44. The ASEP also includes both connected and similar land transfer actions from the Tucson Airport Authority (TAA) to the USAF for land at AFP 44; and another parcel of airport land, on behalf of the National Guard Bureau, for construction of a Munitions Storage Area for the Arizona Air National Guard 162nd Wing at the Tucson Air National Guard Base.
Copies of the ROD are available for public review at the following locations during normal business hours:
• U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region, Office of Airports, 777 South Aviation Boulevard, Suite 150, El Segundo, California 90245.
• U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Phoenix Airports District Office, 3800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1025, 10th Floor, Phoenix, Arizona 85012.
• Tucson International Airport Administrative Offices, 7250 South Tucson Boulevard, Suite 300, Tucson, Arizona 85756.
The ROD may also be viewed at FAA's website:
Copies of the ROD is also available at the following libraries:
Questions may be directed to the individual above under the heading
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before January 2, 2019.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-1043 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Deana Stedman, AIR-673, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198, phone and fax 206-231-3187, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on land release request.
The FAA is considering a request from the Cullman Regional Airport Board to waive the requirement that 1.23± acres of airport property located at the Cullman Regional-Folsom Field Airport in Vinemont, Alabama, be used for aeronautical purposes.
Comments must be received on or before January 14, 2019.
Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA to the following address: Jackson Airports District Office Attn: Wesley E. Mittlesteadt, Program Manager, 100 West Cross Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208-2307.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Cullman Regional-Folsom Field Airport, Attn: Ben Harrison, General Manager, 231 County Road 1360, Vinemont, AL 35179.
Wesley E. Mittlesteadt, Program Manager, Jackson Airports District Office, 100 West Cross Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208-2307, (601) 664-9884. The land release request may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA is reviewing a request by Cullman Regional Airport Board to release 1.23± acres of airport property at the Cullman Regional-Folsom Field Airport (CMD) under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47107(h). The property will be purchased by Vinemont/Providence Volunteer Fire Department for non-aeronautical purposes. The property is adjacent to residential property on the west quadrant of airport property just off County Road 1371. The net proceeds from the sale of this property will be used for eligible airport improvement projects for general aviation facilities at the Cullman Regional-Folsom Field Airport.
Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request, notice and other documents germane to the request in person at the Cullman Regional-Folsom Field Airport (CMD).
Under part 235 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that on September 19, 2018, Pan Am Railways (PAR) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2018-0078.
The applicant's corporate name is Springfield Terminal Railway Company (ST). The applicant is the operator of the line as lessor from Boston and Maine Corporation (BM), owner. Both the applicant and BM are wholly owned subsidiaries of PAR.
ST seeks approval to discontinue the signal system on the single main track on the Northern Main Line between control point number (CPN) 1 in Chelmsford, MA, and milepost number (MPN) 28.70 in Manchester, NH.
ST proposes to discontinue the interlockings and associated appliances at CPN-9; CPN-13; CPN-18; CPN-20 and CPN-28. ST intends to replace the power-operated switch with a hand-operated switch at CPN-20 and replace the spring switch with a hand-operated switch at CPN-9. ST seeks to discontinue block signals 306/307; 352/353; 144/145; 160/161; 400/500; 539/540; and the block signal at MPN 28.70. ST plans to install holding signal, CPN-3, at MPN 28.70 and distant signal at MPN 5.
ST states the reasons for the proposed changes are that (1) no passenger service operates on the line; (2) traffic volumes do not warrant a traffic control system; (3) there are no active interchange points on this portion of the main line; and (4) to employ resources more effectively elsewhere.
Operation over this territory will be conducted in accordance with Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee Form D Control System rules.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by January 28, 2019 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that by letter dated August 21, 2018, the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 236. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2018-0070.
UP seeks a waiver of compliance from 49 CFR 236.1006,
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by January 28, 2019 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on November 16, 2018, the Regional Transportation District (RTD), the City of Arvada, Colorado, and the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 222. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2018-0102.
Specifically, petitioners seek a waiver from the provisions of 49 CFR 222.35(b)(1) to establish a new quiet zone consisting of thirteen public highway-rail grade crossings with active grade crossing warning devices comprising both flashing lights and gates that are not equipped with constant warning time devices. The crossing warning devices on the proposed “RTDC/BNSF Gold Line-Arvada Quiet Zone” on the RTD G-Line are primarily activated by a wireless crossing activation system (WCAS) using “GPS-determined train speed and location to predict how many seconds a train is from the crossing.” Petitioners assert that this information is communicated wirelessly to the crossing warning devices and seeks to provide constant warning times. Additionally, this system is supplemented by a conventional track warning system in case the WCAS is unavailable.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by January 28, 2019 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announces that the aggregate amounts of assistance available under the Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) grant program will increase by 5.63 percent for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019.
The increases in aggregate amounts are effective on October 1, 2018.
Gregory Nelms, Assistant Director for Loan Policy and Valuation, Loan Guaranty Service (26), Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-8978. (This is not a toll-free number.)
In accordance with 38 United States Code (U.S.C.) 2102(e), 38 U.S.C. 2102A(b)(2), 38 U.S.C. 2102B(b)(2), and 38 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 36.4411, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs announces for FY 2019 the aggregate amounts of assistance available to veterans and servicemembers eligible for SAH program grants.
Section 2102(e)(2) authorizes the Secretary to increase the aggregate amounts of SAH assistance annually based on a residential home cost-of-construction index. Per 38 CFR 36.4411(a), the Secretary uses the Turner Building Cost Index for this purpose.
In the most recent quarter for which the Turner Building Cost Index is available, 2nd Quarter 2018, the index showed an increase of 5.63 percent over the index value listed by 2nd Quarter 2017. Turner Construction Company, Cost Index,
Sections 2102A(b)(2) and 2102B(b)(2) require the Secretary to apply the same percentage calculated pursuant to section 2102(e) to grants authorized pursuant to sections 2102A and 2102B. As such, the maximum amount of assistance available under these grants will also increase by 5.63 percent for FY 2019.
The increases are effective as of October 1, 2018. 38 U.S.C. 2102(e), 2102A(b)(2), and 38 U.S.C. 2102B(b)(2).
Effective October 1, 2018, the aggregate amount of assistance available for SAH grants made pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 2101(a) will be $85,645 during FY 2019. The maximum TRA grant made to an individual who satisfies the eligibility criteria under 38 U.S.C. 2101(a) and 2102A will be $37,597 during FY 2019.
Effective as of October 1, 2018, the aggregate amount of assistance available for SAH grants made pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 2101(b) will be $17,130 during FY 2019. The maximum TRA grant made to an individual who satisfies the eligibility criteria under 38 U.S.C. 2101(b) and 2102A will be $6,713 during FY 2019.
Effective as of October 1, 2018, the amount of assistance available for SAH grants made pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 2102B will be $85,645 during FY 2019; however, the Secretary may waive this limitation for a veteran if the Secretary determines a waiver is necessary for the rehabilitation program of the veteran.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on December 4, 2018 for publication.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rules and technical amendment.
The Commission is adopting a new rule under the Securities Act of 1933 to establish a safe harbor for an unaffiliated broker or dealer participating in a securities offering of a covered investment fund to publish or distribute a covered investment fund research report. If the conditions in the rule are satisfied, the publication or distribution of a covered investment fund research report would be deemed
This rule is effective January 14, 2019 except that amendatory instruction 4 amending § 230.139b(a)(1)(i)(A)(
Asaf Barouk, Attorney-Adviser, John Lee, Senior Counsel; Amanda Hollander Wagner, Branch Chief; Thoreau Bartmann, Senior Special Counsel; or Brian McLaughlin Johnson, Assistant Director, at (202) 551-6792, Investment Company Regulation Office, Division of Investment Management; Steven G. Hearne, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-3430, Division of Corporation Finance; Laura Gold or Samuel Litz, Attorney-Advisers; or John Guidroz, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-5777, Office of Trading Practices, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-8549.
The Commission is adopting 17 CFR 230.139b (“new rule 139b”) under the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. 77a
As directed by the Fair Access to Investment Research Act of 2017,
Section 2(a)(3) of the Securities Act provides a safe harbor for broker-dealers with respect to research reports about “emerging growth
In May of 2018 we proposed new rules and rule amendments designed to meet the requirements of the FAIR Act. We received seven comment letters on the proposal.
Rule 139b's framework is modeled after and generally tracks rule 139. However, rule 139b differs from rule 139 in certain respects. Some of these differences are specifically directed or contemplated by the FAIR Act.
Rule 139b establishes a safe harbor for the publication or distribution of “covered investment fund research reports” by unaffiliated broker-dealers (as described below) participating in a securities offering of a “covered investment fund.”
We are adopting the definition of “covered investment fund research report” as proposed.
The affiliate exclusion prohibits two separate categories of research reports from being deemed to be “covered investment fund research reports” under rule 139b's safe harbor. The first category covers research reports published or distributed by the covered investment fund or any affiliate of the covered investment fund. This exclusion prevents such persons from indirectly using the safe harbor to avoid the applicability of the Securities Act prospectus requirements and other provisions applicable to written offers by such persons. The second category covers research reports published or distributed by any broker-dealer that is an investment adviser (or an affiliated
As we noted in the Proposing Release, one factor to consider in evaluating whether a research report has been published or distributed by a person covered by the affiliate exclusion is the extent of such person's involvement in the preparation of the research report.
While we did not receive comments on the definition of “covered investment fund research report,” we received comments on the affiliate exclusion embedded in the definition.
As we noted in the Proposing Release, the entanglement and adoption theories are helpful guideposts in establishing whether a research report about a covered investment fund was published or distributed by the fund.
Under rule 139b, we believe it would be inappropriate for any person covered by the affiliate exclusion, or for any person acting on its behalf, to publish or distribute a research report indirectly that the person could not publish or distribute directly under the rule.
Also in relation to the affiliate exclusion, one commenter suggested that the proposal did not adequately address conflicts of interest such as revenue sharing agreements.
While we appreciate the concerns noted with respect to potential conflicts of interest, and specifically those arising from revenue sharing agreements, we are not adding additional explicit conflicts-of-interest-related restrictions in the final rule. The antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and certain existing Commission and SRO rules continue to apply to covered investment fund research reports, some of which, depending on the facts and circumstances, may require disclosure of such conflicts.
We understand that disclosure about conflicts of interest created by the receipt of compensation by the broker-dealer from covered investment funds is consistent with current industry practices in communications that are Securities Act section 10(b) prospectuses and are currently styled as “research reports” subject to the requirements of rule 482.
We are defining, as proposed,
The FAIR Act defines the term “covered investment fund” to include registered investment companies, BDCs, and certain commodity- or currency-based trusts or funds.
Broker-dealers publishing or distributing research reports for some covered investment funds, such as commodity- or currency-based trusts or funds that have a class of securities registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), rather than relying on new rule 139b, instead may be able to rely on rule 139. Rule 139b does not preclude a broker-dealer from relying on existing rule 139 if applicable. In order to clarify that a broker-dealer may rely on existing research safe harbors, we proposed that rule 139b state that it does not affect the availability of any other exemption or exclusion from sections 2(a)(10) or 5(c) of the Securities Act that may be available to a broker-dealer.
As discussed in the Proposing Release, the Commission has previously acknowledged the value of research reports in providing the market and investors with information about reporting issuers.
In order for a broker-dealer to include a covered investment fund in a research report published or distributed in reliance on the rule 139b safe harbor, the fund must meet certain reporting history and timeliness requirements. We are adopting as proposed that any such covered investment fund must have been subject to the relevant requirements under the Investment Company Act and/or the Exchange Act to file certain periodic reports for at least 12 calendar months prior to a broker-dealer's reliance on rule 139b and that these reports have been filed in a timely manner.
Several commenters requested we eliminate the reporting history requirement for issuer-specific research reports under rule 139b.
As discussed in the Proposing Release, rule 139b tracks the reporting history requirement of rule 139.
We do not believe that funds should be treated differently from other issuers subject to the reporting requirement of rule 139. The Commission included a reporting history requirement in rule
Corporate issuers are subject to, under rule 139, filing and disclosure obligations similar to what is required of covered investment funds under rule 139b. Although funds differ from corporate issuers in many respects, investors would benefit similarly from having access to fund information to evaluate the research reports on which they may consider relying. Accordingly, for the same reasons the Commission determined to include this requirement in rule 139, we have determined to include this requirement in rule 139b.
We also believe that broker-dealers will be able to comply with the reporting history requirement in a manner similar to how they comply with the parallel requirement in rule 139 and that the effect of the requirement on new funds would be similar to the effect on new issuers under rule 139.
One commenter also requested the reporting history requirement be shortened from 12 months to 25 days after a fund initially starts offerings shares. The commenter argued that this would align with broker-dealers' market practice of waiting 25 days after an initial public offering.
Rule 139 is available only to broker-dealers that both publish or distribute a research report on an issuer and are participating or will participate in a registered offering of the issuer's securities. The 25-day standard referenced by the commenter relates to the issuance of a research report after the prospectus delivery obligation in an initial public offering ends, not while the offering is ongoing and the broker-dealer is participating in it. Accordingly, the prospectus delivery obligation described by the commenter is distinct from the delivery obligation that applies to continuous offerings. Thus, the commenter's suggested provision and rationale do not appropriately apply to a broker-dealer participating in a continuous offering. The 25-day standard referenced by the commenter is premised on statutory provisions addressing prospectus delivery, a different investor protection consideration from rules 139 and 139b. Accordingly, we believe the 25-day standard is inapposite to rule 139b, as rule 139b applies to broker dealers that are participating in the offering of the subject fund's securities, not after the offering has ended. For these reasons, we are adopting the reporting history provision as proposed.
Two commenters opposed the proposed timeliness requirement for issuer-specific research reports.
Satisfaction of the timeliness requirement indicates a greater likelihood that a covered investment fund will make information available in a timely manner to inform investors of material information about the fund, including risks. We believe it is important for covered investment fund investors to have timely information from the fund when evaluating research reports, as it is for operating company investors. Rule 139 requires that an issuer satisfy the reporting history and timeliness requirements at the time the broker-dealer publishes or distributes a research report.
We are adopting a requirement that, in order for broker-dealers to use the rule 139b safe harbor to publish or distribute issuer-specific research reports, the covered investment fund that is the subject of a report must satisfy a minimum public market value threshold at the date of reliance on the new rule (the “float requirement”). Specifically we are adopting a requirement that the aggregate market value of a covered investment fund, or the net asset value
We are adopting the float requirement and level as proposed. However, as discussed below, the final rule includes two changes to the float calculation methodology for most covered investment funds. First, the final rule generally no longer requires that the fund issuer's aggregate market value or net asset value be calculated net of its affiliates' holdings.
Several commenters argued that a float requirement should be eliminated or reduced in the context of covered investment funds because such a requirement would limit the extent of research that could be produced.
As noted by commenters, we recognize that the minimum public float requirement may impact the amount of research on covered investment funds. However, we continue to believe that this requirement is consistent with rule 139's framework and intent.
With respect to the level of the minimum public float, the float requirement is not intended to include or exclude a certain percentage of funds or other issuers from research coverage. The float requirement is intended to act as a proxy for market following. As we have previously analyzed in other contexts, analyst research coverage of an issuer is one indicia of market following. We have previously observed that analyst coverage drops off significantly with smaller issuers, and few if any issuers with less than $75 million in public float have significant analyst coverage.
While a broker-dealer publishing a research report about a fund that does not meet the minimum public float could not rely on rule 139b, other methods may be available to provide information about these funds by a broker-dealer participating in the offering, such as choosing to cover a smaller fund in a rule 482 communication.
While we continue to believe that the float requirement serves a useful purpose, we recognize that the proposed float requirement could pose unique operational challenges for analysts covering certain covered investment funds. Accordingly, as discussed below, we are making certain changes to the timing and method of the float calculation that are designed to address these concerns for covered investment funds.
One commenter stated that calculating a covered investment fund's public float, and determining the specific amount of affiliate holdings to be excluded in calculating the public float as proposed, is a practical challenge for broker-dealers because it was not clear to the commenter that third-party vendors or filings on EDGAR contain data regarding the value of covered investment funds, net of value held by affiliates.
We appreciate these concerns and are therefore adopting two modifications to the final rule. First, the final rule does not require that the fund's aggregate market value or net asset value be calculated net of affiliates' holdings for most covered investment funds.
Unlike rule 139, rule 139b does not permit affiliates of covered investment funds to rely on the safe harbor,
Second, the final rule will permit a broker-dealer to satisfy the minimum float requirement when it initiates (or reinitiates) coverage and then once a quarter thereafter (so long as it continues issuing or distributing research on that fund), rather than each time the broker-dealer publishes or distributes a research report, as proposed.
We believe these adjustments appropriately tailor rule 139 to covered investment funds. For the reasons discussed below, we believe that the changes to the calculation and time of testing of the minimum public float requirement for covered investment funds under rule 139b are necessary or appropriate in the public interest, and for the protection of investors, and for the promotion of capital formation as they allow appropriately tailoring of rule 139 in applying it to covered investment funds while considering their unique structure and operational aspects.
We proposed that the float threshold be calculated in terms of NAV rather than aggregate market value for mutual funds in order to reflect the market structure differences between mutual funds and all other covered investment funds.
Finally, one commenter suggested that we revise rule 139b to permit an issuer-specific research report to cover a non-traded closed-end fund or BDC that does not have a “public float,” and thus which, under proposed rule 139b, could not be included in an issuer-specific research report.
Although under the proposed rule the NAV calculation method was only available to mutual funds, we acknowledge that the Proposing Release discussion was inconsistent with the proposed rule text in that the Proposing Release discussed the possibility of non-traded BDCs and CEFs calculating a NAV based on their last publicly disclosed share price for purposes of proposed rule 139b.
We decline to amend the rule text to allow the NAV calculation method for non-traded BDCs and closed-end funds. We believe that it is inappropriate for non-traded BDCs and closed-end funds to satisfy the float requirement using a
In addition, we do not believe that providing a different calculation method for non-traded closed-end funds and non-traded BDCs is appropriate, because such funds do not have the same kind of structural differences that necessitate different treatment provided to open-end funds. For example, unlike mutual funds, non-traded closed-end funds and BDCs could meet the float requirement if they chose to be listed and would not have to undertake any structural changes. By opting not to list, non-traded BDCs and closed-end funds are similar to non-listed operating company issuers that, by choosing not to list, cannot meet the public float requirement of rule 139.
Finally, we do not believe that our approach is inconsistent with the statute or congressional intent. Specifically, we note that the FAIR Act includes an interim effectiveness provision, whereby if the Commission has not adopted a covered investment fund research report rule within 270 days of the Act's enactment, broker-dealers could begin publishing or distributing covered investment fund research reports provided that certain rule 139 conditions are satisfied.
We are adopting as proposed a condition to rule 139b that a broker-dealer's publication or distribution of research reports be “in the regular course of its business”
The FAIR Act, however, provides that the safe harbor shall not apply the “initiation or reinitiation” requirement to a report concerning a covered investment fund with a class of securities “in substantially continuous distribution.”
One commenter asked for clarification that the scope and meaning of “substantially continuous distribution” includes traded registered closed-end investment companies and BDCs engaged in at-the-market (“ATM”) offering programs over consecutive quarters pursuant to rule 415(a)(4) under the Securities Act.
One commenter asked that we clarify whether broker-dealers that have published and distributed communications styled as “research reports” in compliance with rule 482 would meet the regular-course-of-business requirement.
One commenter indicated that broker-dealers should not be required to have a traditional research department in order to rely on the rule.
Several commenters expressed concerns that the regular-course-of-business requirement was too restrictive.
Moreover, broker-dealers that wish to newly begin publishing or distributing research reports on funds could meet this condition through any of the methods discussed above.
Similarly, another commenter stated that in place of the regular-course-of-business requirement, we should require broker-dealers' policies and procedures to include rule 139b compliance.
Since rule 139 was first adopted, the regular-course-of-business requirement has been a condition for a broker-dealer's publication or distribution of research reports in reliance on the rule.
Rule 139b sets forth conditions for industry research reports that parallel the corresponding conditions under rule 139 and are intended to provide appropriate parameters to address the risk of circumvention of the prospectus requirements of the Securities Act.
Under the rule 139b safe harbor, each covered investment fund included in an industry research report must be subject to the reporting requirements of section 30 of the Investment Company Act (or, for covered investment funds that are not registered investment companies under the Investment Company Act, the reporting requirements of section 13 or section 15(d) of the Exchange Act). This reporting requirement generally tracks an existing requirement for industry research reports under rule 139 but has been modified so that it would be applicable to industry research reports that include covered investment fund issuers.
Under rule 139b, as proposed, a broker-dealer must publish or distribute research reports in the regular course of its business in order to rely on the new rule's safe harbor.
Like the parallel provision in rule 139, rule 139b's regular-course-of-business requirement for industry research reports includes the requirement that, at the time of publication or distribution of the
We provided guidance in section II.B.1.c above on how a broker-dealer can meet the regular-course-of-business requirement in the context of issuer-specific research reports, and such guidance would be equally applicable in meeting the requirement in the context of industry research reports. We are adopting the requirement as proposed for the reasons discussed in this section and in the similar section for issuer-specific research reports.
Rule 139b's safe harbor for publication or distribution of industry research reports is also conditioned on certain content requirements. We are adopting these requirements as proposed.
Specifically, under rule 139b, industry research reports either must include similar information about a substantial number of covered investment fund issuers of the same type or investment focus (the “industry representation requirement”),
Several commenters argued that a broker-dealer should be able to include affiliated funds in industry research reports about covered investment funds.
We believe extending the rule 139b safe harbor to affiliated funds in industry research reports (whether industry representation or comprehensive list reports) would not be consistent with the intent and plain language of section 2(f)(3) of the FAIR Act.
One commenter raised the concern that excluding affiliated funds from an industry research report subject to the comprehensive list requirement may create a false impression that an affiliated fund is excluded because it does not meet an investor's criteria.
One commenter argued that rule 139b should not include industry report content requirements because covered investment funds do not have the same market conditioning or “gun-jumping” concerns as securities covered in research reports published or distributed in reliance on rule 139.
The language from rule 139's industry representation requirement is replicated in rule 139b, with modifications designed to apply the language to the covered investment fund context. Under rule 139's corresponding requirement, an industry research report must include “similar information with respect to a substantial number of issuers in the issuer's industry or sub-industry.”
As proposed, the rule 139b safe harbor for industry research reports is conditioned on a presentation requirement. Under the new rule, analysis of any covered investment fund issuer or its securities included in an industry research report cannot be given materially greater space or prominence in the publication than that given to any other covered investment fund issuer or its securities.
We believe that the concerns underlying the rule 139 presentation requirements apply equally in the context of covered investment fund research reports.
One commenter argued that rule 139b should not include industry report presentation requirements because covered investment funds do not have the same market conditioning or “gun-jumping” concerns as those securities covered in research reports published or distributed in reliance of rule 139.
The proposed rule would not have required standardized performance presentation for covered investment fund research reports. However, the Commission requested comment on whether the final rule should require research reports about registered investment companies to be subject to standardized performance presentation requirements. The Commission expressed its concern that not including standardized performance measures in research reports could lead to investor confusion. The Commission also noted its longtime recognition that investors tend to consider investment performance to be a particularly significant factor in evaluating or comparing investment companies and had previously identified a number of circumstances in which performance could be disclosed in a misleading manner.
In a change from the proposal, we are adopting a condition in rule 139b that if fund performance information is included in a research report, it must be presented in accordance with certain standardized presentation requirements dependent on the type of covered investment fund covered.
Specific statutory provisions and rules apply to advertising the performance of registered investment companies.
Because a broker-dealer's publication or distribution of a covered investment fund research report under rule 139b is deemed not to constitute an offer for purposes of sections 2(a)(10) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, a covered investment fund research report would no longer need to be deemed to be a section 10(b) prospectus (such as an advertising prospectus under rule 482) for purposes of section 5(b)(1) of the Securities Act. In addition, some communications that previously were considered supplemental sales literature under rule 34b-1 under the Investment Company Act that must be accompanied or preceded by a statutory prospectus now could be considered covered investment fund research reports (which need not be preceded or accompanied by a statutory prospectus).
We received two comment letters addressing this issue.
Another commenter stated that the Commission should require that fund-specific performance information in covered investment fund research reports be presented in accordance with the applicable standardization requirements.
The final rule thus requires that a research report that includes open-end fund performance information must present this information in accordance with rule 482 presentment and timeliness requirements. A research report must present closed-end fund performance information in accordance with the instructions to item 4.1(g) set forth in Form N-2 (although other historical measures of performance may also be included if the other measurement is set out with no greater prominence than the measurement that is in accordance with the instructions to item 4.1(g) of Form N-2).
Rule 139b(a)(3) requirements would not preclude research report analysts from presenting performance information in their preferred manner; rather, it requires that standardized performance information also be included if non-standardized performance information is presented. To satisfy this requirement, analysts may choose to present non-standardized performance information in a way they believe highlights a particular insight or analysis, so long as it is presented alongside the standardized performance information consistent with rule 482 requirements or Form N-2, if applicable.
As noted in the proposal, covered investment fund research reports relying on the rule 139b safe harbor are subject to the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.
The FAIR Act contemplates that SRO content standards applicable to research reports would apply to covered investment fund research reports.
Currently, the SRO content standards relevant to communications that would be considered covered investment fund research reports under rule 139b include the applicable content standards of FINRA rules 2210, 2241, and 2242.
The FAIR Act does not explicitly refer to specific content standards in SRO rules. It refers more generally to “the content standards in the rules of any self-regulatory organization related to research reports, including those contained in the rules governing communications with the public regarding investment companies or substantially similar standards.”
Additional FINRA content-related requirements include the content standards of FINRA rule 2210 that apply only to retail communications (or retail communications and correspondence, as those terms are defined in FINRA rule 2210(a)).
These additional requirements also include the content standards incorporated in FINRA rules 2241 and 2242, which apply to certain research reports defined in these FINRA rules. The scope of FINRA rules 2241 and 2242 only includes research reports or debt research reports as defined in these rules, and the definitions of “research report” and “debt research report” in these rules are different than the definitions of “research report” set forth in rule 139 and new rule 139b. Under FINRA rule 2241, “research report” is defined as any written (including electronic) communication that includes an analysis of equity securities of individual companies or industries (other than an open-end registered investment company that is not listed or traded on an exchange) and that provides information reasonably sufficient upon which to base an investment decision; similarly, under FINRA rule 2242, “debt research report” is defined as any written (including electronic) communication that includes an analysis of a debt security or an issuer of a debt security and that provides information reasonably sufficient upon which to base an investment decision, excluding communications that solely constitute an equity research report as defined in FINRA rule 2241(a)(11).
Rule 24b-4, as adopted, modifies the filing requirements that currently apply to certain broker-dealer communications regarding registered investment companies. Today, registered investment company sales literature, including rule 482 omitting prospectus advertisements, are required to be filed with the Commission under section 24(b) of the Investment Company Act
As discussed in the Economic Analysis below, we anticipate that certain communications that historically have been treated as investment company sales literature, including rule 482 “omitting prospectus” advertisements, would be published or distributed by a broker-dealer as covered investment fund research reports pursuant to the rule 139b safe harbor.
FINRA rule 2210 requires the filing of certain communications, including retail communications that promote or recommend a specific registered investment company or family of registered investment companies.
However, the FAIR Act's rules of construction provide that the Act shall not be construed as limiting the authority of an SRO to require the filing of communications with the public if the purpose of such communications “is not to provide research and analysis of covered investment funds.”
Two commenters requested that FINRA's filing requirements be modified in light of the FAIR Act.
As we discussed above, section 2(c)(2) of the FAIR Act states that nothing in the FAIR Act shall be construed as in any way limiting the authority of an SRO, which includes FINRA, to require the filing of communications with the public, including covered investment fund research reports, the purpose of which is not to provide research and analysis of covered investment funds. To the extent FINRA would seek to amend its rules, any such proposed rule changes would be filed with the Commission pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act and rule 19b-4 thereunder.
The FAIR Act also directs us to provide that SROs may not maintain or enforce any rule that would (i) prohibit the ability of a member to publish or distribute a covered investment fund research report solely because the member is also participating in a registered offering or other distribution of any securities of such covered investment fund; or (ii) prohibit the ability of a member to participate in a registered offering or other distribution of securities of a covered investment fund solely because the member has published or distributed a covered investment fund research report about such covered investment fund or its securities.
Rule 101 of Regulation M under the Exchange Act
The conforming amendment is intended to align the treatment of research under rule 139b with the treatment of research under rules 138 and 139 for purposes of Regulation M. In the absence of the conforming amendment, rule 101 could prevent the publication or dissemination of a covered investment fund research report under the rule 139b safe harbor by a broker-dealer that is participating in a distribution that is covered by Regulation M. We believe that such a result would be contrary to the mandate of the FAIR Act. The conforming amendment is intended to harmonize treatment of research under the Securities Act and Exchange Act rules. We received no comments on this aspect of the proposal. We are adopting the conforming amendment as proposed.
In October 2016, the Commission adopted new rules and forms and amended other rules and forms under the Investment Company Act to modernize the reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies.
We are mindful of the costs and benefits of our rules. Section 2(b) of the Securities Act, section 3(f) of the Exchange Act, and section 2(c) of the Investment Company Act state that when the Commission is engaging in rulemaking under such titles and is required to consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in (or, with respect to the Investment Company Act, consistent with) the public interest, the Commission shall consider, in addition to the protection of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
The economic analysis proceeds as follows. We begin with a discussion of the baseline used in the analysis. We then discuss the costs and benefits of the rules we are adopting, as well as the effects of these rules on efficiency, competition, and capital formation compared to the baseline. Where possible, we attempt to quantify the economic effects we discuss, although in many cases we are unable to do so and instead rely on qualitative characterizations. In the Proposing Release, we requested comment on our analysis of these effects.
The Commission's economic analysis evaluates the costs and benefits of the rules being adopted relative to a baseline that represents the best assessment of relevant markets and market participants in the absence of these rules. In this section, we begin by characterizing the relevant market structure and participants.
The rules we are adopting directly affect broker-dealers, but their indirect effects extend to covered investment funds, other producers of research on covered investment funds, and consumers of information about covered investment funds.
The “covered investment fund” definition in the FAIR Act and rule 139b has the effect of capturing five common types of investment vehicles: Mutual funds, ETFs, certain currency and commodity exchanged traded products (“ETPs”),
Covered investment fund shares represent a significant fraction of investment assets held by U.S. residents. Approximately one-third of U.S. corporate equity issues, one-quarter of U.S. municipal securities, one-fifth of corporate debt, one-fifth of U.S. commercial paper, and one-tenth of U.S. treasury and agency securities are held through covered investment funds.
As depicted in Figure 3, the covered investment fund market is dynamic. In 2017, 638 covered investment funds were created, while 853 were closed or merged into other covered investment funds.
The broker-dealers directly affected by the rules we are adopting are those who participate in registered offerings of covered investment funds while at the same time publishing or distributing information about those funds. The Commission does not have comprehensive data on the number or characteristics of broker-dealers currently publishing and distributing communications about covered investment funds, the extent of their communications, and their distribution arrangements with covered investment funds. Therefore we rely on inferences based on the data that are available
We believe that broker-dealers that do not derive revenues from the distribution of covered investment funds are less likely to be directly affected by the rules we are adopting.
The Commission does not have comprehensive data on broker-dealers that publish or distribute research reports on entities that are included within the definition of “covered investment fund” under rule 139b.
Existing Commission and SRO rules do not delineate a category of “research reports” pertaining to covered investment funds. Consequently, it is not possible to identify with precision broker-dealer communications under the baseline that would be considered “research reports” as defined in rule 139b. However, we understand that some broker-dealers have published and distributed communications styled as “research reports” in compliance with rule 482 under the Securities Act.
Of the 47,707 filings subject to rule 482, 229 were also subject to rule 34b-1. These 229 are not included in the 8,528 figure. Statistics provided by FINRA.
We have also analyzed the number of “research reports” as defined under FINRA rules 2241 and 2242 that FINRA staff reviewed in 2017. However, for reasons discussed below, we also believe that these data have limited value in assessing the number of covered investment fund research reports whose publication or distribution could be eligible for the safe harbor under rule 139b. FINRA reviewed 354 filings in 2017 that were identified as “research reports” as defined in FINRA rules 2241 and 2242. However, the definitions of “research report” and “debt research report” under FINRA rules 2241 and 2242, respectively, do not correspond in every respect to the term “research report” as defined in the FAIR Act and rule 139b.
Under FINRA rule 2241, the term “research report” includes any written communication that includes an analysis of equity securities (other than mutual fund securities) and that provides information reasonably sufficient upon which to base an investment decision.
In addition to broker-dealers, various firms that are independent of the offering process currently provide data and analysis on different subsets of the covered investment fund universe (
The objective of this analysis is to consider the effects of regulations being adopted pursuant to the FAIR Act's statutory mandate. Thus, for the purposes of the baseline, we take into account the regulatory structure in place immediately prior to the enactment of the FAIR Act. We also note that on July 3, 2018, the interim effectiveness provision of the FAIR Act came into effect.
A broker-dealer's publication or distribution of a covered investment fund research report could be deemed to constitute an offer that otherwise could be a non-conforming prospectus whose use in the offering may violate section 5 of the Securities Act.
Additionally, certain SRO rules governing content standards may apply to advertisements styled as “research reports” under rule 482 or to communications that would be covered investment fund research reports under rule. These include FINRA rule 2210, which contains general content standards that apply broadly to member communications.
Exposure to liability under section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, rule 482 requirements on the standardized presentation of performance information, and the various aforementioned FINRA rules impose costs on broker-dealers. These include conduct costs resulting from additional liability (
Under the baseline, a research report or other communication about a covered investment fund that is a registered investment company would have to comply with the requirements of Securities Act rule 482
In this section, we first consider the overarching costs and benefits associated with the FAIR Act's statutory mandates. Second, we evaluate the costs and benefits of the specific provisions of the rules we are adopting and their relation to the overarching considerations resulting from the statutory mandate. Next, we discuss the effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation of the new rules. We conclude with a discussion of alternatives considered.
We believe that the expansion of the rule 139 safe harbor (as mandated by the FAIR Act) will generally reduce broker-dealers' costs of publishing and distributing research reports about covered investment funds. These cost reductions are expected because under the new rules a broker-dealer could publish or distribute covered investment fund research reports without reliance on rule 482 or rule 34b-1 and without being required to file these reports under section 24(b) of the Investment Company Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
Because there is limited historical experience dealing specifically with broker-dealers' research reports on covered investment funds, there is little in the way of direct empirical evidence on the value of such reports to investors. Prior research on the informativeness of broker-dealers' research on operating companies suggests that broker-dealers can produce research that positively contributes to the information content of market prices,
We are cautious in drawing implications from these findings to broker-dealers' research on covered investment funds. While analysts researching operating companies generally endeavor to identify mispricing—to forecast the idiosyncratic component of firms' future returns—covered investment funds represent portfolios of securities, and many covered investment funds are priced at net asset value (“NAV”).
We believe that the quantity of information available to potential investors of covered investment funds will increase as a result of broker-dealers' increased publication and distribution of covered investment fund research reports. The rules we are adopting will also allow for greater flexibility in the type of information that broker-dealers may communicate to customers.
Prior experience and academic research suggests that, unchecked, broker-dealers' conflicts of interest can lead to bias in research reports,
The potential for conflicts of interest to lead to actions that impose costs on investors depends in large part on the strength of the underlying incentives. In the context of broker-dealers' research on covered investment funds, the greatest conflicts of interest are faced by broker-dealers serving as investment advisers to covered investment funds, who—due to asset-based management fees—have strong incentives to increase demand for the funds that they advise. Because the FAIR Act by its terms,
Other conflicts of interest may nevertheless arise from incentives in fund distribution arrangements.
Rule 12b-1(h)(1) prohibits funds from compensating a broker-dealer for promoting or selling funds shares by directing brokerage transactions to that broker.
It is difficult for us to quantify the aforementioned costs in the context of this rulemaking. We are not aware of any studies directly examining the role that conflicts of interest play in broker-dealers' research reports on covered investment funds in U.S. markets, or of any data that would support a quantitative analysis of an expanded safe harbor in this context.
Rules and regulations have been implemented to address potential conflicts of interest that may arise with broker-dealers specifically in the context of research reports.
Additionally, as described above, FINRA rule 2210 contains general content standards that apply broadly to member communications, including broker-dealer research reports. These general content standards require, among other things, that all member communications “must be based on principles of fair dealing and good faith, must be fair and balanced, and must provide a sound basis for evaluating the facts in regard to any particular security or type of security, industry or service.”
If a broker-dealer recommends
We believe that by facilitating production of information on covered investment funds, the FAIR Act's mandates will contribute to competition among information providers,
We also acknowledge that biases resulting from conflicts of interest need not adversely impact investors if investors disregard,
As discussed above, rule 139b conditions eligibility for the safe harbor on satisfaction of several conditions.
Under the affiliate exclusion of rule 139b,
We expect covered investment funds and their investment advisers to engage in a broad range of marketing activities to support the distribution of fund shares (particularly in the case of redeemable securities such as those issued by mutual funds), and that funds and their advisers prepare and distribute materials to distributing broker-dealers intended to increase sales. The affiliate exclusion and associated guidance
The affiliate exclusion is also likely to limit the benefits of the rule for certain broker-dealers. Many broker-dealers distributing covered investment fund securities do not have sizeable research departments, and we understand that very few broker-dealers operate at a scale that would allow for comprehensive coverage of the covered investment funds that they distribute. We believe that under the affiliate exclusion, it would be inappropriate for such broker-dealers to publish or distribute research report provided by a covered investment fund or the fund's affiliates.
Under rule 139b, research reports (both issuer-specific research reports and industry research reports) need to be published or distributed by the broker-dealer in the “regular course of its business” in order to rely on the safe harbor.
Given the breadth of the definition of “research report” under the FAIR Act (and the definition of “research report” that we are adopting under rule 139b), certain communications that are currently treated as covered investment fund advertisements under Securities Act rule 482 could fall under the rule 139b definition of “research report.”
First, in the context of covered investment funds, the distinction between communications intended as sales materials and those intended as research could be difficult to discern. Research reports about debt and equity securities have traditionally been provided to institutional customers as part of the broker-dealer's collection of services.
In contrast, we expect covered investment fund research reports to be produced by broker-dealers that distribute covered investment funds to retail investors.
Second, the information environment surrounding covered investment funds further complicates establishing whether publishing research reports about covered investment funds is undertaken in the regular course of business. In the context of research reports about operating companies, a research analyst “following” an operating company continually monitors that company so as to provide timely forecasts and recommendations. Because of differences in the nature of covered investment funds and operating companies, we believe that the same is less likely to hold for a research analyst “following” a covered investment fund.
We noted in the Proposing Release that due to the aforementioned distinctions in the information environment and business rationale, we believed that the regular-course-of-business requirement in the context of rule 139b may be more challenging to apply in practice than the regular-course-of-business requirement in the context of rule 139 and that the potential benefits of this requirement in rule 139b may be more limited. We also noted that the effects of the regular-course-of-business requirement would be clearer in cases where, in the case of issuer-specific research reports, the bright-line “initiation or reinitiation” requirement applies (
Related concerns were voiced by several commenters who questioned the feasibility of satisfying the regular-course-of-business requirement under the proposed rules.
Under rule 139b, a broker-dealer's publication or distribution of issuer-specific research reports does not qualify for the safe harbor unless the covered investment fund included in the report satisfies a minimum public market value threshold of $75 million.
The covered investment funds market is dynamic.
We believe that in the context of covered investment funds, where we expect limited market discipline from institutional investors and where large numbers of new funds are created each year, the information available to investors could be sparse. In such an environment, a single research report about a covered investment fund could have a disproportionate effect on retail investors' beliefs about the fund and—in the case of a biased research report—have a negative effect on investor welfare. We believe that conditioning the availability of the safe harbor on the aforementioned reporting history and market valuation requirements would help restrict the availability of the safe harbor in situations where we expect the information environment to be most limited: For new funds and for funds with limited trading or interest.
As noted by several commenters, because young and small covered investment funds are relatively common, the costs associated with these conditions on the availability of a safe harbor could be significant.
Although small funds represent a very small fraction of covered investment fund assets, they are relatively large in number.
Several commenters raised concerns that—in addition to the aforementioned costs—compliance with the reporting history and minimum market value requirements as proposed could be operationally challenging for broker-dealers.
Another commenter noted that some broker-dealers provide investors research about large numbers of funds on a largely automated basis, and that ensuring compliance with the reporting history and minimum public market value requirements would create “operational hurdles” for these broker-dealers.
Finally, one commenter raised concerns that because of shortcomings in the data currently available about affiliates' holdings, it may not be possible for broker-dealers to establish the public market value of a covered investment fund if affiliate holdings are to be excluded from the calculation.
Under rule 139b an industry research report could only include covered investment funds that are required to file reports pursuant to section 30 of the Investment Company Act (or, for covered investment funds that are not registered investment companies under the Investment Company Act, required to file reports pursuant to section 13 or section 15(d) of the Exchange Act).
Under rule 139b, the content and presentation standards for industry research reports of rule 139 are tailored to the context of covered investment funds. Under rule 139b (and rule 139), issuers appearing in industry research reports are subject to fewer conditions than issuers that are subjects of issuer-specific research reports.
We believe the compliance costs imposed by these requirements on the production of industry research reports would be low, particularly as broker-dealers are already familiar with similar conditions in rule 139, making implementation of presentation conditions for industry research reports on covered investment funds less burdensome.
Given the definition of “research report” under the FAIR Act (and the definition of “research report” being adopted under rule 139b), certain communications by broker-dealers that historically have been treated as advertisements for registered investment companies under rule 482 now could be distributed as covered investment fund research reports under the rule 139b safe harbor.
As discussed above, unlike in the Proposing Release, final rule 139b incorporates provisions on the presentation of performance information in research reports about registered investment companies that mirror those of rule 482 and—with respect to closed-end funds—Form N-2.
Because fees can represent a significant drag on investment returns,
By limiting opportunities for selective performance disclosure, we believe that final rule 139b will also reduce the potential for investor confusion. Under the final rule, there will be fewer opportunities for the performance disclosure in registered investment company advertisements and research reports to diverge. There also could be less potential for investor confusion when comparing research reports about different covered investment funds, or reports issued by different broker-dealers. These results would benefit investors. As discussed in the Proposing Release, the extent of the benefits resulting from requirements on the presentation of performance information depends on their effectiveness in ensuring consistent disclosure and/or alerting investors to factors that could influence their understanding of the disclosure in a research report. The extent of the benefit also would depend on the audience who will be reading research reports about registered investment companies. As discussed in the Proposing Release, we believe that retail investors would generally be less likely to be able to identify sources of bias (and disregard or discount bias) in communications about covered investment funds than institutional investors and therefore could benefit from limitations on selective performance disclosure. We believe that rule 482 standards on the presentation of performance information have been effective at limiting selective disclosure in applicable registered investment company advertisements, and that they will be similarly effective for research reports falling under rule 139b. Moreover, as noted above, we believe that retail investors will be the primary consumers of such research reports, and that such investors would be most likely
As discussed in the Proposing Release, we believe that the most significant costs associated with additional requirements on the manner in which performance information may be presented would result from their potential to limit the manner in which the content of broker-dealers' research reports is presented. Although we are not preventing alternative performance measures from being included in research reports, by limiting the prominence afforded to such performance measures we could adversely affect broker-dealers' ability to provide valuable analysis. For example, a broker-dealer who wishes to center its analysis on a fund's risk-adjusted returns would be limited in how such information could be presented in the report, even though certain audiences for research reports could consider this information to be particularly relevant.
We believe that broker-dealers' direct compliance costs under these additional provisions would be minimal. Because we believe that broker-dealers that will publish research reports are likely currently distributing advertisements under rule 482, these broker-dealers likely already have processes and systems to produce charts and tables of performance measures using timely data under the presentation standards required by the final rules. However, we acknowledge that the final rules' will impose costs on broker-dealers that did not previously distribute advertisements under rule 482 and they would need to develop processes and systems to implement these presentation standards. We estimate the one-time implementation costs attributable to the new presentation standards for each broker-dealer publishing research reports to be approximately 5 hours or $1,310.
Rule 24b-4 excludes a covered investment fund research report from the coverage of section 24(b) of the Investment Company Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, except to the extent that such report is not subject to the content provisions of SRO rules related to research reports, including those contained in the rules governing communications with the public regarding investment companies or substantially similar standards. As discussed above, this rule is meant to implement section 2(b)(4) of the FAIR Act, which we interpret to exclude covered investment fund research reports from section 24(b) of the Investment Company Act so long as they continue to be subject to the general content standards in FINRA rule 2210(d)(1).
As discussed above, where covered investment fund research reports would no longer be required to be filed with the Commission pursuant to section 24(b), rule 24b-4 could have the effect of narrowing the types of communications regarding registered investment companies that would be filed with FINRA (under current FINRA rule 2210).
As discussed above, rule 101 of Regulation M prohibits a person who participates in a distribution from attempting to induce others to purchase securities covered by the rule during a specified period.
As discussed above, we are making a technical amendment to Form 12b-25 to replace references to Form N-SAR with references to Form N-CEN and to remove the checkbox and accompanying text related to transition reports on Form N-SAR.
The primary effects on economic efficiency and capital formation resulting from rules 139b and 24b-4 obtain from the statutory mandates of the FAIR Act. Because financial intermediaries such as broker-dealers are generally assumed to possess some comparative advantage in the production of information about securities, efficiency considerations would—in the absence of significant market imperfections—dictate that broker-dealers should be active in the production of such information. To the extent that the increase in broker-dealers' production of research reports about covered investment funds—that we expect to occur as a result of the FAIR Act's statutory mandates
Beyond the aforementioned broader effects on efficiency and capital formation resulting from the FAIR Act's statutory mandates, we believe that the specific conditions
With respect to competition, we believe that expansion of the rule 139 safe harbor will increase competition in the market for research reports on covered investment funds. Under the baseline, the market for research reports on covered investment funds is dominated by a small number of independent research firms, with few broker-dealers producing original research about such funds.
We considered several alternative approaches to implementing the FAIR Act mandates that could satisfy the requirements of the FAIR Act. We summarize these here.
As discussed above, we believe that conditioning the availability of the safe harbor on the $75 million minimum public market value requirement will promote investor protection by limiting research reports to issuers that have a demonstrated market following.
Depending on the distribution of covered investment funds' public market values, a somewhat lower threshold could significantly increase the number of covered investment funds that qualify for inclusion in research reports without undermining investor protection (because it would not materially increase the number of qualifying funds without a demonstrated market following). Conversely, a significantly higher threshold could further promote investor protection without significantly decreasing the number of qualifying funds (however, as discussed below, we did not consider this alternative because the FAIR Act prevents us from conditioning the availability of the safe harbor on a minimum public market
We have considered a range of alternative minimum public market values thresholds. Figure 5 plots the percentage of covered investment
The FAIR Act prevents us from conditioning the availability of the safe harbor on a minimum public market value requirement that is greater than what is required under rule 139.
With respect to conditions affecting the availability of the safe harbor for industry research reports, we considered applying to industry research reports the same requirements as would apply to issuer-specific research reports. As with the restrictions on issuer-specific research reports, similarly restricting industry research reports could help ensure that funds included in research reports are well-followed, and could restrict the availability of the safe harbor in situations where we expect the information environment to be most limited: For new funds and for funds with niche markets.
In the context of research reports about covered investment funds, cost-benefit considerations for including additional conditions on industry reports differ slightly from those that apply in the context of traditional research reports about equity and debt securities. In the context of research reports about equity and debt securities, analysis of an industry, in the case of operating companies, may require the discussion of specific firms within that industry. For example, a discussion about a mature industry (
In the context of covered investment funds, a similar rationale would not apply as broadly. Rule 139b content requirements for industry research reports would reference covered investment fund issuers of the same “type or investment focus,” rather than the issuers' “industry or sub-industry” (
We considered providing that a comprehensive list of recommended issuers may include issuers that are affiliates of the broker-dealer that is publishing or distributing the research report under certain circumstances, including: If affiliates were identified; if disclosure about the affiliated issuers were limited; or if any performance information included in a list that includes affiliated issuers were presented in accordance with rule 482.
As discussed in section III.C.2.b, in principle we expect a regular-course-of-business requirement to reduce opportunities for the safe harbor to be used in ways that lead to investor confusion. However, we also believe that in the context of covered investment funds, establishing whether a report is published in the “regular course of business” could present more challenges than in the rule 139 context of research reports about the securities of operating companies.
Conditioning availability of the safe harbor on a broker-dealer's having published research reports for a given period of time, or on the broker-dealer's having operated for some amount of time, could lead to the publication of reports that are more likely to be recognized as research.
In rule 139b, we have chosen not to incorporate these more specific alternative approaches to the regular-
As discussed above, we have chosen to incorporate rule 482 and Form N-2 requirements on the presentation of performance information in final rule 139b.
In general, imposing additional requirements on the presentation of performance information would further reduce opportunities for research reports to present fund performance information in a manner inconsistent with similar information presented in advertisements and supplemental sales literature. We believe that these additional requirements would therefore reduce investor confusion and opportunities for the safe harbor to be used to present misleading information to investors.
The alternatives of including various forms of disclosures to the effect that a “research report” is not subject to the Commission's regulations applicable to sales and advertising would impose the lowest costs on broker-dealers. However, we believe that requiring disclosure to this effect is unlikely to have significant beneficial effects in the retail context.
New rule 139b contains “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”).
As discussed in the Proposing Release,
In the Proposing Release, we solicited comment on whether rule 139b should include a standardized performance disclosure requirement.
It is difficult to provide estimates of the burdens and costs for those broker-dealers that will include performance information in a rule 139b research report. As discussed above, this is difficult to estimate because current data collected does not reflect the affiliate exclusion, does not include the entire universe of covered investment funds, and it is uncertain what percentage of communications currently filed as rule 482 advertising prospectuses (or rule 34b-1 supplemental sales materials) will instead be published in reliance on rule 139b, as covered investment fund research reports.
In sum, we estimate that rule 139b's requirements will impose a total annual internal hour burden of 20,731 hours on broker-dealers.
We request comment on our approach and the accuracy of the current estimates. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Commission solicits comments to: (1) Evaluate whether the collections of information are 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 Commission's estimate of the burden of the collections of information; (3) determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) evaluate whether there are ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are required to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The agency has submitted the proposed collections of information to OMB for approval. Persons wishing to submit comments on the collection of information requirements of the proposed amendments should direct them to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, and should send a copy to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, with reference to File No. S7-11-18. As OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of the proposal, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Requests for materials submitted to OMB by the Commission with regard to these collections of information should be in writing, refer to File No. S7-11-18, and be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis has been prepared in accordance with section 4(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”).
Rule 139b provides that, if certain conditions are satisfied, a broker-dealer's publication or distribution of a covered investment fund research report is deemed for purposes of sections 2(a)(10) and 5(c) of the Securities Act not to constitute an offer for sale or offer to sell a security that is the subject of an offering of the covered investment fund, even if the broker-dealer is participating or may participate in a registered offering of the covered investment fund's securities. Rule 24b-4 provides that a covered investment fund research report about a registered investment company will not be subject to section 24(b) of the Investment Company Act (or the rules and regulations thereunder), except to the extent the research report is otherwise not subject to the content standards in SRO rules related to research reports, including those contained in the rules governing communications with the public regarding investment companies or substantially similar standards. The revision to paragraph (a) of rule 139 would clarify that rule 139 does not affect the availability of any other exemption or exclusion from sections 2(a)(10) or 5(c) of the Securities Act that may be available to a broker-dealer (as provided, for example, by the provisions of rule 139a or new rule 139b). The revision to rule 101 under Regulation M is a conforming amendment intended to harmonize treatment of research under the Securities Act and Exchange Act rules by permitting distribution participants under Regulation M, such as brokers-dealers, to publish or disseminate any information, opinion, or recommendation relating to a covered security if the conditions of rule 138, rule 139, or rule 139b under the Securities Act are met. The new rules and rule revisions implement the directives under the FAIR Act to extend the current safe harbor available under rule 139 to broker-dealers' publication or distribution of covered investment fund research reports. The reasons for, and objectives of, the new rules and rule revisions are discussed in more detail in section II above.
In the Proposing Release, we requested comment on each aspect of the IRFA, including the number of small entities that would be affected by the proposed rules and amendments, the existence or nature of the potential impact of the proposals on small entities discussed in the analysis and how to quantify the impact of the proposed rules. We did not receive comments specifically addressing the impact of the rules and amendments on small entities subject to the rule.
The new rules affect broker-dealers that publish or distribute covered investment fund research reports. As such, broker-dealers that are small
We believe that there are no reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements with respect to rule 139b and the revision to Regulation M. As such, we believe that there are no attendant costs and administrative burdens for small entities associated with these activities, as they relate to rule 139b and the revision to Regulation M.
Rule 139b extends the safe harbor under rule 139 to broker-dealers' publication or distribution of covered investment fund research reports. As a result of the FAIR Act communications that historically have been treated as covered investment fund advertisements under rule 482 now could fall under the new rule 139b definition of “research report.”
As discussed above, section 24(b) of the Investment Company Act requires registered open-end investment companies to file sales literature addressed to or intended for distribution to prospective investors with the Commission.
The amendments are discussed in detail in Section II above. We discuss the economic impact, including the estimated compliance costs and burdens, of the amendments in Section III above.
The RFA directs us to consider significant alternatives that would accomplish the Commission's stated objectives, while minimizing any significant adverse impact on small entities. In connection with the proposals, we considered the following alternatives: (i) Establishing different compliance or reporting requirements that take into account the resources available to small entities; (ii) exempting broker-dealers that are small entities from certain proposed conditions that must be satisfied in order for the rule 139b safe harbor to be available (
We do not believe that establishing different compliance and reporting requirements or timetables for broker-dealers that are small entities, or exempting broker-dealers that are small entities from certain conditions, would
As discussed above, the FAIR Act directs us to extend the current safe harbor available under rule 139 to broker-dealers' publication or distribution of covered investment fund research reports, and thus rule 139b's framework, including its scope and conditions, is modeled after and generally tracks rule 139.
Nor do we believe that clarifying, consolidating, or simplifying the amendments for small entities would satisfy those objectives. Because rule 139b's framework (including its scope and conditions) is modeled after and generally tracks rule 139, rule 139b, like rule 139, does not treat small broker-dealers differently than large broker-dealers, including by clarifying, consolidating, or simplifying any conditions.
Further, with respect to using performance rather than design standards, the rule generally uses performance standards for all broker-dealers relying on the rule, regardless of size. We believe that providing broker-dealers with the flexibility with respect to the design of covered investment fund research reports that they may publish or distribute in reliance on the safe harbor is appropriate in light of the diversity of entities included in the universe of covered investment funds. We also believe that this approach is appropriate in light of the diverse methodologies that might be taken with respect to research about these entities (particularly because the term “research report” in the FAIR Act and the rule is defined broadly, as discussed above
We are adopting the rules contained in this document under the authority set forth in the Securities Act, particularly sections 6, 7, 8, 10, 17(a), 19(a), and 28 thereof [15 U.S.C.
Advertising, Confidential business information, Investment companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Brokers, Fraud, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Confidential business information, Fraud, Investment companies, Life insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 17, chapter II of the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as follows.
15 U.S.C. 77b, 77b note, 77c, 77d, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77r, 77s, 77z-3, 77sss, 78c, 78d, 78j, 78
(a)
(a)
(1)
(A) The covered investment fund:
(B) At the time of the broker's or dealer's initial publication or distribution of a research report on the covered investment fund (or reinitation thereof), and at least quarterly thereafter;
(ii) The broker or dealer publishes or distributes research reports in the regular course of its business and, in the case of a research report regarding a covered investment fund that does not have a class of securities in substantially continuous distribution, such publication or distribution does not represent the initiation of publication of research reports about such covered investment fund or its securities or reinitiation of such publication following discontinuation of publication of such research reports.
(2)
(ii) The covered investment fund research report:
(A) Includes similar information with respect to a substantial number of covered investment fund issuers of the issuer's type (
(B) Contains a comprehensive list of covered investment fund securities currently recommended by the broker or dealer (other than securities of a covered investment fund that is an affiliate of the broker or dealer, or for which the broker or dealer serves as investment adviser (or for which the broker or dealer is an affiliated person of the investment adviser));
(iii) The analysis regarding the covered investment fund issuer or its securities is given no materially greater space or prominence in the publication than that given to other covered investment fund issuers or securities; and
(iv) The broker or dealer publishes or distributes research reports in the regular course of its business and, at the time of the publication or distribution of the research report (in the case of a research report regarding a covered investment fund that does not have a class of securities in substantially continuous distribution), is including similar information about the issuer or its securities in similar reports.
(3)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(i) An investment company (or a series or class thereof) registered under, or that has filed an election to be treated as a business development company under, the Investment Company Act and that has filed a registration statement under the Act for the public offering of a class of its securities, which registration statement has been declared effective by the Commission; or
(ii) A trust or other person:
(A) Issuing securities in an offering registered under the Act and which class of securities is listed for trading on a national securities exchange;
(B) The assets of which consist primarily of commodities, currencies, or derivative instruments that reference commodities or currencies, or interests in the foregoing; and
(C) That provides in its registration statement under the Act that a class of its securities are purchased or redeemed, subject to conditions or limitations, for a ratable share of its assets.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
15 U.S.C. 77g, 77q(a), 77s(a), 78b, 78c, 78g(c)(2), 78i(a), 78j, 78k-1(c), 78
(b) * * *
(1)
15 U.S.C. 78a
the text of Form 12b-25 does not, and this amendment will not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
15 U.S.C. 80a-1
A covered investment fund research report, as defined in paragraph (c)(3) of § 230.139b of this chapter under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
By the Commission.
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 |