Page Range | 5297-5519 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
83 FR 5519 - Delegation of Certain Functions and Authorities Under Section 1238 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 | |
83 FR 5422 - Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016 | |
83 FR 5504 - Notice of Receipt of an Application From the California Department of Transportation for Issuance of a Presidential Permit Authorizing the Construction, Connection, Operation, and Maintenance of a New Border Crossing at Otay Mesa East | |
83 FR 5340 - Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste | |
83 FR 5514 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Yellow Ribbon Agreement | |
83 FR 5465 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Station, Units 3 and 4; Addition of a Residual Heat Removal Suction Relief Valve for Low-Temperature Overpressure Protection | |
83 FR 5467 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Shield Building Roof Changes | |
83 FR 5424 - Video Description: Preliminary Nonbroadcast Network Rankings | |
83 FR 5422 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
83 FR 5457 - Filing of Plats of Survey; NV | |
83 FR 5408 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for F-35 Operational Beddown-Air National Guard | |
83 FR 5426 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 5425 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
83 FR 5375 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; California; Interstate Transport Requirements for Ozone, Fine Particulate Matter, and Sulfur Dioxide | |
83 FR 5505 - Commission Meeting | |
83 FR 5468 - Product Change-Parcel Select Negotiated Service Agreement | |
83 FR 5468 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
83 FR 5454 - Agency Information Collection Activities: EngageDHS | |
83 FR 5425 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
83 FR 5425 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
83 FR 5512 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Action | |
83 FR 5455 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Energy Efficient Mortgages (EEMs) | |
83 FR 5456 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Use Restriction Agreement Monitoring and Compliance | |
83 FR 5408 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; DFARS Subpart 249, Termination of Contracts, and a Related Clause at DFARS 252.249-7002 | |
83 FR 5409 - Charter Termination of the Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel | |
83 FR 5402 - Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Belarus, the Russian Federation, and the United Arab Emirates: Notice of Correction to Antidumping Duty Orders | |
83 FR 5405 - Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of Antidumping Duty Order | |
83 FR 5401 - Sodium Gluconate, Gluconic Acid and Derivative Products From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation | |
83 FR 5349 - List of Fisheries for 2018 | |
83 FR 5374 - Energy Conservation Program: Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products | |
83 FR 5508 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension of an Approved Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
83 FR 5459 - Stainless Steel Flanges From China and India Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations | |
83 FR 5506 - Crash Preventability Demonstration Program | |
83 FR 5456 - Indian Trust Asset Reform Act, Title II-Indian Trust Asset Management Demonstration Project | |
83 FR 5461 - Request for Letters of Intent To Apply for 2018 Technology Initiative Grant Funding | |
83 FR 5409 - Board of Visitors National Defense University; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
83 FR 5427 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
83 FR 5429 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; SEDASYS SYSTEM | |
83 FR 5510 - Petition for Modification of Single Car Air Brake Test Procedures | |
83 FR 5511 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
83 FR 5510 - Establishment of an Emergency Relief Docket for Calendar Year 2018 | |
83 FR 5306 - Special Local Regulation; Black Warrior River, Tuscaloosa, AL | |
83 FR 5400 - Census Scientific Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 5511 - Proposed Collection of Information: Government Securities Act of 1986 | |
83 FR 5459 - Cancellation of Withdrawal Application and Withdrawal Proposal and Termination of Environmental Impact Statement for California Desert Conservation Area Withdrawal, California | |
83 FR 5411 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Application for Flexibility for Equitable Per-Pupil Funding | |
83 FR 5505 - Meeting on United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Environment Chapter Implementation, Joint Forum on Environmental Cooperation, and Public Session | |
83 FR 5440 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; BLINCYTO | |
83 FR 5436 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; FARXIGA | |
83 FR 5438 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; State Enforcement Notifications | |
83 FR 5428 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions-Drugs and Biologics | |
83 FR 5433 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Survey on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Selected Retail and Foodservice Facility Types | |
83 FR 5441 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Survey on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Selected Institutional Foodservice and Retail Food Stores Facility Types | |
83 FR 5306 - Annual Update to Fee Schedule for the Use of Government Lands by Hydropower Licensees; Correction | |
83 FR 5420 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725HH); Comment Request | |
83 FR 5415 - Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
83 FR 5418 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-716); Comment Request; Extension | |
83 FR 5416 - Commission Information Collection Activities (Ferc-725x); Comment Request; Extension | |
83 FR 5415 - New Mexico Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
83 FR 5413 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
83 FR 5419 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
83 FR 5464 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments | |
83 FR 5431 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; GENVOYA | |
83 FR 5373 - Regulatory Improvements for Power Reactors Transitioning to Decommissioning | |
83 FR 5488 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Provide Users With Access to Two Additional Third Party Systems and Connectivity to One Additional Third Party Data Feed | |
83 FR 5494 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Provide Users With Access to Two Additional Third Party Systems and Connectivity to One Additional Third Party Data Feed | |
83 FR 5500 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Provide Users With Access to Two Additional Third Party Systems and Connectivity to One Additional Third Party Data Feed | |
83 FR 5474 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Consisting of Amendments to Rule G-21, on Advertising, Proposed New Rule G-40, on Advertising by Municipal Advisors, and a Technical Amendment to Rule G-42, on Duties of Non-Solicitor Municipal Advisors | |
83 FR 5493 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 21.1, Definitions, To Modify a Time in Force Applicable to the Exchange's Equity Options Platform | |
83 FR 5469 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 21.1, Definitions, To Adopt a New Time in Force and To Modify an Existing Time in Force Applicable to the Exchange's Equity Options Platform | |
83 FR 5499 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt New Equity Trading Rules for Trading UTP Securities on Pillar, Including Orders and Modifiers, Order Ranking and Display, and Order Execution and Routing | |
83 FR 5470 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Establish a Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program | |
83 FR 5473 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Expand the Short Term Option Series Program To Allow Monday Expirations for SPY Options | |
83 FR 5504 - Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company | |
83 FR 5409 - Publication of Housing Price Inflation Adjustment | |
83 FR 5446 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 5400 - Improving Customer Service | |
83 FR 5407 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
83 FR 5506 - Nineteenth Tactical Operations Committee (TOC) Meeting | |
83 FR 5417 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
83 FR 5412 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
83 FR 5451 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
83 FR 5448 - National Advisory Council; Meeting | |
83 FR 5449 - Notice of Adjustment of Statewide Per Capita Indicator for Recommending a Cost Share Adjustment | |
83 FR 5450 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
83 FR 5465 - Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes; Meeting Notice | |
83 FR 5447 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; National Flood Insurance Program-Mortgage Portfolio Protection Program (MPPP) | |
83 FR 5448 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; National Fire Academy Long-Term Evaluation Form for Supervisors and National Fire Academy Long-Term Evaluation Form for Students/Trainees | |
83 FR 5410 - Notice of Public Hearing and Business Meeting February 14 and March 14, 2018 | |
83 FR 5445 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 5446 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 5513 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Report of General Information, Report of First Notice of Death, Report of Nursing Home or Assisted Living Information, Report of Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), Report of Non-Receipt of Payment, Report of Incarceration, Report of Month of Death | |
83 FR 5515 - Agency Information Collection Under OMB Review: Approval of Licensing or Certification Test and Organization or Entity | |
83 FR 5299 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
83 FR 5304 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
83 FR 5297 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
83 FR 5301 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
83 FR 5307 - Isoxaben; Pesticide Tolerances | |
83 FR 5312 - Fomesafen; Pesticide Tolerances | |
83 FR 5317 - Additions to List of Categorical Non-Waste Fuels: Other Treated Railroad Ties | |
83 FR 5402 - Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From India, Thailand, and Turkey; Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Brazil, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, and Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders and Countervailing Duty Order | |
83 FR 5340 - Voluntary Consensus Standards Update; Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products |
Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Fiscal Service
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005-19-28, which applied to certain Airbus Model A330-301, -321, -322, -341, and -342 airplanes; and Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes. AD 2005-19-28 required repetitive inspections for cracks in the aft face of the rear spar at the area adjacent to the bolt holes and the end of the build slot, and repair if necessary. AD 2005-19-28 also provided an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This new AD was prompted by the results of a new fatigue and damage tolerance assessment, which determined that several compliance thresholds and intervals needed to be reduced. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition on these products, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective February 22, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by March 26, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.
As described in FAA Advisory Circular 120-104 (
We issued AD 2005-19-28, Amendment 39-14293 (70 FR 57493, October 3, 2005) (“AD 2005-19-28”), which applied to certain Airbus Model A330-301, -321, -322, -341, and -342 airplanes; and Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes. AD 2005-19-28 was prompted by a report that, during fatigue tests of the wing, cracks were found in the vertical web of the rear spar between ribs 1 and 2 having initiated at the build slot. AD 2005-19-28 required repetitive inspections for cracks in the aft face of the rear spar at the area adjacent to the bolt holes and the end of the build slot, and repair if necessary. AD 2005-19-28 also provided an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. We issued AD 2005-19-28 to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the vertical web of the wing rear spar, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing.
Since we issued AD 2005-19-28, a new fatigue and damage tolerance assessment was done, taking into account airplane utilization and widespread fatigue damage analysis. This analysis led to the determination that several compliance thresholds and intervals needed to be reduced. We have also determined that the unsafe condition is not applicable to Airbus Model A330-341 airplanes.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2013-0101, dated April 30, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-301, -321, -322, and -342 airplanes; and Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
During wing fatigue test, a crack was detected which propagated from the tip of the build slot in the vertical web of the wing inner rear spar between rib 1 and 2.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to reduced structural integrity of the wing.
To address this potentially unsafe condition, [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] DGAC France issued AD 2001-268(B)R1 and AD 2001-269(B) [which correspond to FAA AD 2005-19-28] to
Since these [DGAC France] ADs were issued, in the frame of a new fatigue and damage tolerance evaluation, taking into account aeroplane utilization and Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD) analysis, the thresholds and intervals of the affected inspections have been reassessed. This reassessment led to the amendment of several thresholds and to the reduction of inspection intervals to allow timely detection of cracks and to the accomplishment of applicable corrective actions. EASA issued AD 2013-0092, which retained the requirements of DGAC France AD 2001-268(B)R1 and AD 2001-269(B), which were superseded, but required those actions within the new thresholds and intervals.
Since issuance of EASA AD 2013-0092, it has been discovered that certain A330 aeroplanes, incorporating another modification in production, must be excluded from the Applicability. In addition, it has been found necessary to clarify that for the initial inspection, the previous thresholds (to be counted from aeroplane first flight) or intervals, as required by [DGAC France] AD 2001-268(B)R1 and [DGAC France] AD 2001-269(B), cannot be exceeded.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD partially retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0092, which is superseded, and introduces the changes as outlined above.
You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. Based on the actions specified in the MCAI AD, we are providing the following cost estimates for an affected airplane that is placed on the U.S. Register in the future:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition repairs that would be required based on the results of the required actions:
We acknowledge that since the above actions are retained from AD 2005-19-28, but with reduced threshold and intervals, operators would essentially revise their maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the reduced threshold and intervals. We estimate the revision to an operator's maintenance and inspection program would take approximately 1 work-hour × $85 per hour.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective February 22, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2005-19-28, Amendment 39-14293 (70 FR 57493, October 3, 2005) (“AD 2005-19-28”).
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Model A330-301, -321, -322, and -342 airplanes, all manufacturers serial numbers, except those on which Airbus modification 42547 or 44599 has been embodied in production.
(2) Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers, except those on which Airbus modification 42547 or 41300 has been embodied in production.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a report that, during fatigue tests of the wing, cracks were found in the vertical web of the rear spar between ribs 1 and 2 having initiated at the build slot, and a determination that several compliance thresholds and intervals need to be reduced. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the vertical web of the wing rear spar, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, request instructions from the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, to address the unsafe condition specified in paragraph (e) of this AD; and accomplish the action(s) at the times specified in, and in accordance with, those instructions. Guidance can be found in Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2013-0101, dated April 30, 2013.
The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(1) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2013-0101, dated April 30, 2013, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A321-211 and -231 airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition on these products, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. This AD was prompted by a determination that the flat-headed pin at the upper attachment point of the overhead stowage compartments at a certain frame may not sustain the maximum weight load for each flight phase. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective February 22, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by March 26, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2015-0164, dated August 10, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A321-211 and -231 airplanes. The MCAI states:
The overhead stowage compartments (OHSC), located at Frame 47.2 left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) side of the fuselage in certain aeroplanes, are currently installed with a flat headed pin at the upper attachment point. The pin passes through the OHSC upper attachment hole, then through the upper attachment fitting, and is secured by a split ring through the pin. A design review identified a risk that the OHSC attachment may not sustain the maximal loads for each flight phase, over the aeroplane life.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to OHSC detachment during flight, possibly resulting in injury to cabin crew or passengers.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus defined a new attachment design to secure the OHSC attachment in all the flight phases over the aeroplane life. Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-25-1852 to provide modification instructions.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification of the affected OHSC attachments.
You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. Based on the actions specified in the MCAI AD, we are providing the following cost estimates for an affected airplane that is placed on the U.S. Register in the future:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective February 22, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A321-211 and -231 airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers 3191, 3217, 3241, 3251, 3267, 3334, 3459, 3493, 3507, 3552, 3566, 3587, 3645, 3681, 3764, 3784, 3847, 3867, 3920, 3934, 3938, 3951, 3981, 4058, 4074, 4099, 4103, 4116, 4148, 4184, 4189, 4194, 4217, 4224, 4230, 4266, 4271, 4274, 4292, 4299, 4338, 4341, 4369, 4387, 4416, 4430, 4461, and 4500.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.
This AD was prompted by a determination that the flat-headed pin at the upper attachment point of the overhead stowage compartments (OHSCs) at a certain frame may not sustain the maximum weight load for each flight phase. We are issuing this AD to prevent OHSC detachment during flight, which could cause injury to the crew or passengers.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, request instructions from the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, to address the unsafe condition specified in paragraph (e) of this AD; and accomplish the action(s) at the times specified in, and in accordance with, those instructions. Guidance can be found in Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2015-0164, dated August 10, 2015.
The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(1) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2015-0164, dated August 10, 2015, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149.
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-02-18, which applied to all Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -301, -302, and -303 airplanes. AD 2015-02-18 required a one-time ultrasonic inspection for fractures of all aft mount-pylon bolts of each engine. This new AD was prompted by the failure of a bolt on the aft engine mount upper beam, which was found to be caused by inappropriate in-production upper beam installation. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition on these products, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective February 22, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by March 26, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.
We issued AD 2015-02-18, Amendment 39-18085 (80 FR 5020, January 30, 2015) (“AD 2015-02-18”), which applied to all Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -301, -302, and -303 airplanes. AD 2015-02-18 was prompted by a report of one bolt on the aft engine mount upper beam found totally broken. AD 2015-02-18 required a one-time ultrasonic inspection for fractures of all aft mount-pylon bolts of each engine. We issued AD 2015-02-18 to detect and correct fracture of the aft mount-pylon bolts, which could result in failure of the engine mount and consequent detachment of the engine.
Since we issued AD 2015-02-18, further investigation showed that the pylon bolt failure was caused by inappropriate upper beam installation during production. We have determined that repetitive inspections are necessary to address the unsafe condition.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2015-0126, dated July 1, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
During a scheduled replacement of a CF6-80E1 engine on an A330 aeroplane, a bolt on the aft engine mount upper beam was found sheared. The affected bolt is one out of four bolts that attach the upper beam to the pylon.
Investigation results revealed an unusual contact with the counter-bore edge of the beam which induced a significant groove on the bolt during its installation in production. It is suspected that the induced groove led to a fatigue crack initiation and subsequent quick propagation leading to the complete fracture of the bolt. In case of multiple bolt fractures, the remaining bolts would be insufficient to sustain the residual fatigue and limit loads.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead, in case of multiple bolt fracture, to loss of an engine mount structural integrity and possible in-flight engine detachment, resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane and/or injury to persons on the ground.
To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2013-0094 to require a one-time ultrasonic (US) inspection of the four aft mount-pylon bolts of both engines to detect sheared bolts and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective actions.
Since EASA AD 2013-0094 was issued, further investigation results revealed that the pylon bolt failure was caused by inappropriate upper beam installation during production. An abnormal bending load applied on the bolt during installation of the upper beam could have increased the stress close to or beyond the limit strength, high enough to fracture the bolt.
Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A330-71-3031 providing instructions for repetitive inspections and the applicable corrective actions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD, which supersedes EASA AD 2013-0094, requires repetitive US inspections of the aft mount-pylons bolts of each engine and, depending on findings, corrective actions.
You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. Based on the actions specified in the MCAI AD, we are providing the following cost estimates for an affected airplane that is placed on the U.S. Register in the future:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition repairs that would be required based on the results of the required actions:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective February 22, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2015-02-18, Amendment 39-18085 (80 FR 5020, January 30, 2015) (“AD 2015-02-18”).
This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -301, -302, and -303 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers, except those on which Airbus modification 203947 has been embodied in production.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.
This AD was prompted by the failure of a bolt on the aft engine mount upper beam, which was found to be caused by inappropriate in-production upper beam installation. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fracture of the aft mount-pylon bolts, which could result in loss of engine mount structural integrity, consequent detachment of the engine and reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, request instructions from the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, to address the unsafe condition specified in paragraph (e) of this AD; and accomplish the action(s) at the times specified in, and in accordance with, those instructions. Guidance can be found in Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2015-0126, dated July 1, 2015.
The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in
(1) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2015-0126, dated July 1, 2015, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes; and Model A340-211, -212, -311, and -313 airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition on these products, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. This AD was prompted by a report of a hard contact that was found between the constant speed motor/generator feeder line route 6G/6E and the optional cabin temperature control pipe on the upper shell between certain frames. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective February 22, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by March 26, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2014-0161, dated July 10, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes; and Model A340-211, -212, -311, and -313 airplanes. The MCAI states:
A hard contact was found on an A330 aeroplane during production between the Constant Speed Motor/Generator (CSM/G) feeder line route 6G/6E (Functional Item Number 1526VB) and the optional cabin temperature control pipe on the upper shell between Frame (FR)37.4 and FR38 on stringer 5, right hand (RH) side.
This condition, if not corrected, may lead to chafing and, consequently, a short circuit when the emergency generation is activated, resulting in the loss of emergency generation. The loss of normal generation combined with the loss of emergency generation jeopardizes the aeroplane safe flight.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus developed a modification to provide adequate clearance between harness 1526VB and the affected (optional) air-conditioning temperature control pipe. A340-200/-300 aeroplanes equipped with this optional cabin temperature control pipe are also affected by this issue. The modification can be embodied in service through Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A330-92-3125, or SB A340-92-4097, as applicable.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification of the CSM/G mounting with installation of new stacking and/or longer bracket, depending on aeroplane configuration.
You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. Based on the actions specified in the MCAI AD, we are providing the following cost estimates for an affected airplane that is placed on the U.S. Register in the future:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective February 22, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Airbus Model A330-202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers on which Airbus modification 45775, 45790, 45795, 46165, 46779, 48099, 48454, 52131, 52802, 53730, 53819, 54310, 54410, 54420, 54530, 55231, 55630, 56080, 56260, 56620, 57186, 57430, 200774, 201071, 201298, 201888, 202558, or 203045 has been embodied in production, except those on which Airbus modification 203395 has been embodied in production.
(2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -311, and -313 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers on which Airbus modification 40413, 40550, 40901, 42021, 43590, or 46487 has been embodied in production, except those on which Airbus modification 203395 has been embodied in production.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 92, Electrical system installation.
This AD was prompted by a report of a hard contact that was found between the constant speed motor/generator feeder line route 6G/6E and the optional cabin temperature control pipe on the upper shell between certain frames. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing, which can lead to a short circuit when the emergency generation is activated and a consequent loss of emergency generation. The loss of normal generation combined with the loss of emergency generation could adversely affect the airplane's continued safe flight and landing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, request instructions from the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, to address the unsafe condition specified in paragraph (e) of this AD; and accomplish the action(s) at the times specified in, and in accordance with, those instructions. Guidance can be found in Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2014-0161, dated July 10, 2014.
The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
(1) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2014-0161, dated July 10, 2014, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.
None.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,DOE.
Correcting amendment.
This document contains corrections to the final rule (RM11-6-000) which published in the
Effective February 7, 2018, and is applicable beginning October 1, 2016.
Norman Richardson, Financial Management Division, Office of the Executive Director, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6219,
On February 28, 2017, the Commission issued an
Public lands.
Accordingly, 18 CFR part 11 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:
16 U.S.C. 792-828c; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
The revisions read as follows:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation on the Black Warrior River extending the entire width of the channel from mile marker 339.0 to mile marker 341.5 in Tuscaloosa, AL on March 24, 2018, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the Rowing Competition marine event. Our regulation for Recurring Marine Events in Captain of the Port Sector Mobile Zone identifies the regulated area for this rowing event. During the enforcement period, no vessel may transit this regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port Sector Mobile or a designated representative.
The regulation in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 7, line 4, will be enforced from 6 a.m. through 4:30 p.m. on March 24, 2018.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email call or email LT Kyle D. Berry, Sector Mobile, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 251-441-5940, email
The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation for the annual “Rowing Competition/University of South Alabama”, listed in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 7, line 4, from 6 a.m. through 4:30 p.m. on March 24, 2018. This action is
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.801 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of isoxaben in or on apple, the bushberry subgroup 13-07B, the tree nut group 14-12, and the small vine climbing fruit (except fuzzy kiwifruit) subgroup 13-07F. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective February 7, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before April 9, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0650, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), 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 EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, 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-2016-0650 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 April 9, 2018. 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 number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0650, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
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. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance 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. . . . ”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for isoxaben including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with isoxaben follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
Isoxaben shows low acute toxicity by all routes. In chronic oral studies, the liver (mouse) and kidney (rat) were target organs, and decreased body weight was observed in the rat, mouse, and dog. There was no indication of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity. No evidence of increased susceptibility was observed in the rat or rabbit developmental toxicity studies, but was observed in the rat reproductive toxicity study only at the limit dose.
Isoxaben is currently classified as having “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential,” based on the presence of liver tumors in male and female mice. Because the tumors were benign and observed at dose levels exceeding the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day and there was low concern for genotoxicity, the cRfD is considered protective of potential carcinogenicity and a quantitative assessment of cancer risk was not conducted.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by isoxaben as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for isoxaben used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
1.
i.
No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for isoxaben; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
Based on the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC v1.106) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of isoxaben for chronic exposures are estimated to be 43.6 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 909 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 909 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
Isoxaben is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Residential turf. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Isoxaben residential uses constitute short- and intermediate-term exposure scenarios. For residential handlers, since a dermal endpoint was not selected, the only route of exposure quantitatively assessed for adult handlers is through inhalation. For post-application exposures, only intermediate-term incidental oral exposures for children were assessed due to the persistence of isoxaben residues in soil. Neither a short-term dermal nor short-term incidental oral endpoint was selected for children. Although there is potential for post-application inhalation exposure of both adults and children, the estimated exposure is anticipated to be negligible; therefore, a quantitative post-application inhalation assessment was not required.
For the purpose of performing an aggregate assessment, the Agency selected only the most conservative, or worst-case, residential adult and child scenarios to be included in the aggregate, based on the lowest overall MOE (highest exposure estimates). For adults, handler inhalation exposure resulting from the application of a granular formulation of isoxaben to residential lawns via push-type spreader has been used to estimate adult aggregate exposure. (The inhalation exposure was added to background exposure from food and water, and compared to the short-term inhalation POD.) Post-application risks for adults in residential settings were not assessed due to the lack of a dermal endpoint.
For children, an intermediate-term aggregate assessment was conducted by adding the incidental soil ingestion exposure, and average food and water exposure (chronic dietary exposure). The incidental oral residential exposure value selected for the aggregate analysis is based on children ingesting soil particles containing pesticide residues while playing on treated turf. Due to the persistence of isoxaben in the soil, the Agency used a conservative approach by using the maximum seasonal application rate for estimating soil ingestion by children rather than the standard maximum single application rate. This scenario resulted in the highest calculated exposure levels; therefore, it is protective for all other oral post-application exposure and risk for children in residential settings.
Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
4.
EPA has not found isoxaben to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and isoxaben does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that isoxaben does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for isoxaben is adequately complete to allow the Agency to assess the toxicological profile of isoxaben.
ii. There is no indication that isoxaben is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. No evidence of increased susceptibility was observed in the rat or rabbit developmental toxicity studies, but was observed in the rat reproductive toxicity study only at the limit dose; however, this risk assessment is protective of the susceptibility observed at the limit dose in the reproductive toxicity study.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to isoxaben in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by isoxaben.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
Isoxaben is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to isoxaben.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 6,700 for females 13-49 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for isoxaben is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not of concern.
4.
Isoxaben is currently registered for uses that could result in intermediate-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with intermediate-term residential exposures to isoxaben.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 7,200 for children 1-2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for isoxaben is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not of concern.
5.
6.
An adequate residue analytical method (RAM) utilizing liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC/MS/MS), GRM 02.26.S.1 (a revision of GRM 02.26), is available for enforcement of isoxaben residues in crop commodities.
The method 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 any MRLs for isoxaben.
Seven comments were received in response to the notice of filing. All of the comments were general in nature, not specific to the chemical isoxaben. They included statements such as “I am not in favor of relaxing requirements on pesticides,” “I am opposed to this proposal,” and “My body doesn't live well on pesticides.”
The Agency recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops; however, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. These citizens' comments appear to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's implementation of it; the citizens have made no contention that EPA has acted in violation of the statutory framework nor have they provided any specific information or allegation that would support a finding that these tolerances are unsafe.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of isoxaben including its metabolites and degradates, in or on apple at 0.01 ppm; the bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 0.01 ppm; the fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 0.01 ppm; and the nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.02 ppm. In addition, the following existing tolerances are removed since they are superseded by the new tolerances: Grape, nut, tree, group 14; and pistachio.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. 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); Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or 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 final rule, 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, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency 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) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of fomesafen in or on the tuberous and corm vegetable subgroup 1C, the legume vegetable group 6, and the low growing berry subgroup 13-07G (except cranberry). Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective February 7, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before April 9, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0629, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), 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 EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, 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-2015-0629 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 April 9, 2018. 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
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
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. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance 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. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for fomesafen including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with fomesafen follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
The primary target organs of fomesafen are the liver and hematological system. Generally, hyalinization of hepatocytes provided the most sensitive toxicological endpoint (intermediate, and long term) in mammals. In the subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in rats and mice, food consumption, food efficiency, body weight, body weight gain, and histopathological changes in the liver were parameters that were most often affected. In addition, dogs, rats, and mice also showed hematological changes (
Carcinogenicity was not observed in the rat chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study. Liver tumors were produced in the mouse carcinogenicity study; however, the Agency determined that fomesafen should be classified as “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans.” This decision was based on the weight-of-evidence which supports activation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα) as the mode of action for fomesafen-induced hepatocarcinogenesis in mice. Fomesafen was not considered to be mutagenic.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by fomesafen as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fomesafen used for human risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit.
1.
i.
Such effects were identified for fomesafen. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance level residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT).
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
Based on the Pesticide in Water Calculator (PWC) model (Version 1.52) the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of fomesafen for acute exposures are estimated to be 168 parts per billion (ppb) and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 125 ppb. These modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.
3.
Fomesafen is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.
4.
EPA has not found fomesafen to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and fomesafen does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that fomesafen does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicology database for fomesafen is complete and sufficient for assessing potential susceptibility to infants and children. Although the developmental toxicity study in rabbits was classified unacceptable due to mortality from bacterial infections, there was no evidence of increased susceptibility of rabbit fetuses due to the treatment with fomesafen. Therefore, the lack of an acceptable developmental toxicity study in non-rodents is not considered a data gap.
ii. There is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or a need to retain the FQPA SF to account for the lack of such study. Decreased motor activity (horizontal and vertical activity and time in central quadrant) was observed in male rats in the acute neurotoxicity screening battery. In the subchronic neurotoxicity test, neither general systemic toxicity nor neurotoxicity was observed at the highest dose tested. All points of departure used in the risk assessment are protective of potential neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that fomesafen results in increased susceptibility in
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to fomesafen in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by fomesafen.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
Both short- and intermediate-term adverse effects were identified; however, fomesafen is not registered for any use patterns that would result in either short- or intermediate-term residential exposure. Short- and intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short- or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess either short- or intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of short- or intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term risk for fomesafen.
4.
5.
Adequate residue analytical methods are available for the purpose of fomesafen tolerance enforcement for plant commodities. A high performance liquid chromatography method with tandem mass spectrometry detection (LC/MS/MS) method (GRM045.01A) has
The method 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 any MRLs for fomesafen.
Two comments were received in response to the notice of filing. The first was related to a different chemical, azoxystrobin, and is therefore not relevant to this action. The second was from the Center for Biological Diversity and centered primarily around impacts on endangered and threatened species. This comment is not relevant to the Agency's evaluation of safety of the fomesafen tolerances under section 408 of the FFDCA, which requires the Agency to evaluate the potential harms to human health, not effects on the environment.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fomesafen, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the following commodities: Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry at 0.02 ppm; vegetable, legume, group 6 at 0.05 ppm; and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.025 ppm. In addition, the following existing tolerances are removed as unnecessary since they are superseded by the newly established tolerances: Bean, dry at 0.05 ppm; bean, lima, succulent at 0.05 ppm; bean, snap, succulent at 0.05 ppm; pea, succulent at 0.025 ppm; potato at 0.025 ppm; soybean at 0.05 ppm; and soybean, vegetable, succulent at 0.05 ppm.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. 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); 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 final rule, 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, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency 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 governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency 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.
The additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing amendments to the Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials regulations, which generally established standards and procedures for identifying whether non-hazardous secondary materials are solid wastes when used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units. In February 2013, the EPA listed particular non-hazardous secondary materials as “categorical non-waste fuels” provided certain conditions are met. This final rule adds the following other treated railroad ties (OTRT) to the categorical non-waste fuel list: Processed creosote-borate, copper naphthenate and copper naphthenate-borate treated railroad ties, under certain conditions depending on the chemical treatment.
This rule is effective February 7, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0248. All documents in the docket are listed on the
George Faison, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, MC 5303P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-7652; email:
The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
The EPA is amending 40 CFR 241.4(a) to list additional non-hazardous secondary materials (NHSMs) as
Categories and entities potentially affected by this action, either directly or indirectly, include, but may not be limited to the following:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities potentially impacted by this action. This table lists examples of the types of entities of which EPA is aware that could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed could also be affected. To determine whether your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is affected by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in this rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
The RCRA statute defines “solid waste” as “any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and
The meaning of “solid waste,” as defined under RCRA, is of particular importance as it relates to section 129 of the CAA. If material is a solid waste, under RCRA, a combustion unit burning it is required to meet the CAA section 129 emission standards for solid waste incineration units. If the material is not a solid waste, combustion units are required to meet the CAA section 112 emission standards for commercial, industrial, and institutional boilers, or if the combustion unit is a cement kiln, the CAA 112 standards for Portland cement kilns. Under CAA section 129, the term “solid waste incineration unit” is defined, in pertinent part, to mean “a distinct operating unit of any facility which combusts any solid waste material from commercial or industrial establishments.” 42 U.S.C. 7429(g)(1). CAA section 129 further states that the term “solid waste” shall have the meaning “established by the Administrator pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act.”
Regulations concerning NHSMs used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units are codified in 40 CFR part 241.
(1) Creosote-borate treated railroad ties, and mixtures of creosote, borate and/or copper naphthenate treated railroad ties that are processed and then combusted in:
(i) Units designed to burn both biomass and fuel oil as part of normal operations and not solely as part of start-up or shut-down operations, and
(ii) Units at major source pulp and paper mills or power producers subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, designed to burn biomass and fuel oil as part of normal operations and not solely as part of start-up or shut-down operations, but are modified in order to use natural gas instead of fuel oil. The creosote-borate and mixed creosote, borate and copper naphthenate treated railroad ties may continue to be combusted as product fuel only if certain conditions are met, which are intended to ensure that such railroad ties are not being discarded.
(iii) Units meeting requirements in (i) or (ii) that are also designed to burn coal.
(2) Copper naphthenate treated railroad ties that are processed and then combusted in units designed to burn biomass, biomass and fuel oil, or biomass and coal.
(3) Copper naphthenate-borate treated railroad ties that are processed and then combusted in units designed to burn biomass, biomass and fuel oil, or biomass and coal.
The Administrative Procedure Act requires publication of a substantive rule 30 days or more before the effective date unless one of the following conditions in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) are met:
(1)A substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction;
(2) interpretative rules and statements of policy; or
(3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.
The Agency first solicited comments on how the RCRA definition of solid waste should apply to NHSMs when used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units in an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), which was published in the
In the March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15456) rule, the EPA finalized standards and procedures to be used to identify whether NHSMs are solid wastes when used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units. “Secondary material” was defined for the purposes of that rulemaking as any material that is not the primary product of a manufacturing or commercial process, and can include post-consumer material, off-specification commercial chemical products or manufacturing chemical intermediates, post-industrial material, and scrap (codified in 40 CFR 241.2). “Non-hazardous secondary material” is a secondary material that, when discarded, would not be identified as a hazardous waste under 40 CFR part 261 (codified in 40 CFR 241.2). Traditional fuels, including historically managed traditional fuels (
A key concept under the March 21, 2011 rule is that NHSMs used as non-waste fuels and ingredients in combustion units must meet the legitimacy criteria specified in 40 CFR 241.3(d)(1). Application of the legitimacy criteria helps ensure that the fuel product is being legitimately and beneficially used and not simply being discarded through combustion (
Based on these criteria, the March 21, 2011 rule identified the following NHSMs as not being solid wastes:
• The NHSM is used as a fuel and remains under the control of the generator (whether at the site of generation or another site the generator has control over) that meets the legitimacy criteria (40 CFR 241.3(b)(1));
• The NHSM is used as an ingredient in a manufacturing process (whether by the generator or outside the control of the generator) that meets the legitimacy criteria (40 CFR 241.3(b)(3));
• Discarded NHSM that has been sufficiently processed to produce a fuel or ingredient that meets the legitimacy criteria (40 CFR 241.3(b)(4)); or
• Through a case-by-case petition process, it has been determined that the NHSM handled outside the control of the generator has not been discarded and is indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a fuel product, and meets the legitimacy criteria (40 CFR 241.3(c)).
In October 2011, the Agency announced it would be initiating a new rulemaking proceeding to revise certain aspects of the NHSM rule.
•
•
•
•
The February 8, 2016 final rule amendments (81 FR 6688) added the following to the list of categorical non-waste fuels:
• Construction and demolition (C&D) wood processed from C&D debris according to best management practices. Under this listing, combustors of C&D wood must obtain a written certification from C&D processing facilities that the C&D wood has been processed by trained operators in accordance with best management practices. Best management practices must include sorting by trained operators that excludes or removes the following materials from the final product fuel: non-wood materials (
• Paper recycling residuals generated from the recycling of recovered paper, paperboard and corrugated containers and combusted by paper recycling mills whose boilers are designed to burn solid fuel.
• Creosote-treated railroad ties (CTRT) that are processed (which includes metal removal and shredding or grinding at a minimum) and then combusted in the following types of units:
○ Units designed to burn both biomass and fuel oil as part of normal operations and not solely as part of start-up or shut-down operations, and
○ Units at major source pulp and paper mills or power producers subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, that combust CTRTs and had been designed to burn biomass and fuel oil, but are modified (
Based on these non-waste categorical determinations, as discussed previously, facilities burning NHSMs that meet the categorical listing description will not need to make individual determinations that the NHSM meets the legitimacy criteria or provide further information demonstrating their non-waste status on a site-by-site basis, provided they meet the conditions of the categorical listing.
The Agency received a petition from the Treated Wood Council (TWC) in April 2013
In the course of EPA's review of the April 2013 petition, additional data was requested and received, and meetings were held between TWC and EPA representatives. Overall, the EPA review determined that there were limited data points available and the analytical techniques for some contaminants were not appropriate to provide information on the entire preserved wood sample as it would be combusted. EPA also questioned the representativeness of the samples being analyzed and the repeatability of the analyses.
In the subsequent August 21, 2015 letter from TWC to Barnes Johnson,
The Agency reviewed TWC's information on the three types of treated railroad ties, creosote borate, copper naphthenate, and copper naphthenate-borate, submitted on September 11, 2015 and requested additional contaminant data, which was submitted on October 5, 2015 and October 19, 2015.
The February 7, 2013 revisions to the NHSM rule discuss the process and
Based on the information in the rulemaking record and comments received, the Agency is finalizing amendments to 40 CFR 241.4(a) by listing three other types of treated railroad ties as categorical non-waste fuels, in addition to CTRTs added in February 2016. Specific determinations regarding these other treated railroad ties (OTRTs,
The rulemaking record for this rule (
The following sections provide the Agency rationale for its determination that OTRTs are appropriate for listing in § 241.4(a) as categorical non-wastes when burned as a fuel in prescribed combustion units. It also addresses major comments the Agency received on the November 1, 2016 NHSM OTRT proposed rule (81 FR 75781). That proposal explained the status of OTRT under current rules, discussed information received during previous rulemakings, as well as the scope of the proposed categorical non-waste fuel listings. The proposed rationale for the listings is found at 81 FR 75788-96 and is incorporated into this final rule, along with all sources referenced in that discussion and cited therein. The final decision in this rule is based on the information in the proposal, comments received on the proposal and supporting materials in the rulemaking record. Any changes from the proposed rule made to the final rule are identified below.
As described in the proposed rulemaking (81 FR 75781, November 1, 2016 (page 75785)), industry representatives stated that the removal of OTRTs from service and processing of those ties into a product fuel is similar to processing of CTRTs described in the February 2016 rule.
After crossties are removed from service, they are transferred for sorting/processing, but in some cases, they may be temporarily stored in the railroad rights-of-way or at another location selected by the reclamation company. One information source
Typically, reclamation companies receive OTRTs by rail. The processing of the crossties into fuel by the reclamation/processing companies involves several steps. Contaminant metals (spikes, nails, plates, etc.) undergo initial separation and removal by the user organization (railroad company) during inspection. At the reclamation company, the crossties are then ground or shredded to a specified size depending on the particular needs of the end-use combustor, with chip size typically between 1-2 inches. Such grinding and shredding facilitates handling, storage and metering to the combustion chamber. By achieving a uniform particle size, combustion efficiency will be improved due to the uniform and controlled fuel feed rate and the ability to regulate the air supply. Additionally, the size reduction process exposes a greater surface area of the particle prior to combustion, releasing any moisture more rapidly, and thereby enhancing its heating value. This step may occur in several phases, including primary and secondary grinding, or in a single phase. Additional metal removal may also occur after shredding.
Once the crossties are ground to a specific size, there is further screening based on the particular needs of the end-use combustor. Depending on the configuration of the facility and
In general, contracts for the purchase and combustion of OTRTs include fuel specifications limiting contaminants, such as metals, and prohibiting the receipt of wood treated with other preservatives such as pentachlorophenol.
Copper naphthenate's effectiveness as a preservative has been known since the early 1900s, and various formulations have been used commercially since the 1940s. It is an organometallic compound formed as a reaction product of copper salts and naphthenic acids derived from petroleum. Unlike other commercially applied wood preservatives, small quantities of copper naphthenate can be purchased at retail hardware stores and lumberyards. Cuts or holes in treated wood can be treated in the field with copper naphthenate. Wood treated with copper naphthenate has a distinctive bright green color that weathers to light brown. The treated wood also has an odor that dissipates somewhat over time. Oil borne copper naphthenate is used for treatment of railroad ties since that treatment results in the ties being more resistant to cracks and checking. Waterborne copper naphthenate is used only for interior millwork and exterior residential dimensional lumber applications such as decking, fencing, lattice, recreational equipment, and other structures. Thus, this final rule does not address waterborne copper naphthenate.
Copper naphthenate can be dissolved in a variety of solvents: The heavy oil solvent (specified in American Wood Protection Association (AWPA) Standard P9, Type A) or the lighter solvent (AWPA Standard P9, Type C). The lighter solvent is the most commonly used for railroad ties due to its ability to penetrate the wood. Copper naphthenate is listed in AWPA standards for treatment of major softwood species that are used for a variety of wood products. It is not listed for treatment of any hardwood species, except when the wood is used for railroad ties. The minimum copper naphthenate retentions (the amount of retention of the preservative in the tie after treatment application) range from 0.04 pounds per cubic foot (0.6 kilograms per cubic meter) for wood used aboveground, to 0.06 pounds per cubic foot (1 kilogram per cubic meter) for wood that will contact the ground and 0.075 pounds per cubic foot (1.2 kilograms per cubic meter) for wood used in critical structural applications.
When dissolved in No. 2 fuel oil (Type C under AWPA standards), copper naphthenate can penetrate wood that is difficult to treat. Copper naphthenate loses some of its ability to penetrate wood when it is dissolved in heavier oils. Copper naphthenate treatments do not significantly increase the corrosion of metal fasteners relative to untreated wood.
Copper naphthenate is commonly used to treat utility poles, although fewer facilities treat utility poles with copper naphthenate than with creosote or pentachlorophenol. Unlike creosote and pentachlorophenol, copper naphthenate is not listed as a Restricted Use Pesticide (RUP)
Borates is the name for a large number compounds containing the element boron. Borate compounds are the most commonly used unfixed waterborne preservatives. Unfixed preservatives can leach from treated wood. They are used for pressure treatment of framing lumber used in areas with high termite hazard and as surface treatments for a wide range of wood products, such as cabin logs and the interiors of wood structures. They are also applied as internal treatments using rods or pastes. At higher rates of retention, borates also are used as fire-retardant treatments for wood. Copper naphthenate treated ties are most effective when dual-treated with borate to prevent decay.
Performance characteristics of borate treatment include protection of the wood against fungi and insects, with low mammalian toxicity. Another advantage of boron is its ability to diffuse with water into wood that normally resists traditional pressure treatment. Wood treated with borates has no added color, no odor, and can be finished (primed and painted).
Inorganic boron is listed as a wood preservative in the AWPA standards, which include formulations prepared from sodium octaborate, sodium tetraborate, sodium pentaborate, and boric acid. Inorganic boron is also standardized as a pressure treatment for a variety of species of softwood lumber used out of contact with the ground and continuously protected from water. The minimum borate (B
Borate preservatives are available in several forms, but the most common is disodium octaborate tetrahydrate (DOT). DOT has higher water solubility than many other forms of borate, allowing more concentrated solutions to be used and increasing the mobility of the borate through the wood. With the use of heated solutions, extended pressure periods, and diffusion periods after treatment, DOT can penetrate wood species that are relatively difficult to treat, such as spruce. Several pressure treatment facilities in the United States use borate solutions. For refractory wood species destined for high decay areas, it has now become relatively common practice to use borates as a pre-treatment to protect the wood prior to processing with creosote.
Creosote was introduced as a wood preservative in the late 1800's to prolong the life of railroad ties. CTRTs
The March 2011 NHSM final rule stated that most creosote-treated wood is non-hazardous. However, the presence of hexachlorobenzene, a CAA section 112 hazardous air pollutant (HAP), as well as other HAPs suggested that creosote-treated wood, including CTRTs, contained contaminants at levels that are not comparable to or lower than those found in wood or coal, the fuel that creosote-treated wood would replace. In making this assessment in 2011, the Agency did not consider fuel oil
Regarding borate-treated wood, after reviewing data from one commenter which showed that the levels of contaminants in this material are comparable to those found in unadulterated wood for the seven contaminants for which data was presented, the Agency stated in the March 2011 final rule that such treated-wood meets the legitimacy criterion on the level of contaminants and comparability to traditional fuels. The rule further stated that borate-treated wood could be classified as a non-waste fuel, provided the other two legitimacy criteria are met and the contaminant levels for any other HAP that may be present in this material are also comparable to or less than those in traditional fuels. The rule noted that such borate-treated wood would need to be burned as a fuel for energy recovery within the control of the generator. Finally, the rule indicated that EPA was aware of some borate-treated wood is subsequently treated with creosote, to provide an insoluble barrier to prevent the borate compounds from leaching out of the wood. The Agency did not receive data on the contaminant levels of the resulting material with both treatments, but data presented on creosote treated lumber when combusted in units designed to burn biomass indicated that this NHSM would likely no longer meet the legitimacy criteria and would be considered a solid waste when burned as a fuel.
As indicated in the rule, EPA did not have information generally about the transfer of borate-treated wood to other companies to make a broad determination about its use as a fuel outside the control of the generator. Thus, under the March 2011 rule, borate-treated wood would need to be burned as a fuel for energy recovery within the control of the generator (76 FR 15484). Persons could make self-determinations regarding other uses of the material as fuel including use outside the control of the generator.
With regard to wood treated with copper naphthenate, the March 2011 rule indicated that no additional contaminant data was provided that would reverse the position in the June 2010 proposed rule, which considered wood treated with copper naphthenate a solid waste because of concerns of elevated levels of contaminants (76 FR 15484, March 21, 2011). The March 2011 rule acknowledged, as in the June 2010 proposed rule (75 FR 31862, June 4, 2010), that the Agency did not have sufficient information on the contaminant levels in wood treated with copper naphthenate. The rule further stated that if a person could demonstrate that copper naphthenate treated-wood is burned in a combustion unit as a fuel for energy recovery within the control of the generator and meets the legitimacy criteria, or if discarded, can demonstrate that they have sufficiently processed the material and meet legitimacy criteria, that person can handle its copper naphthenate treated-wood as a non-waste fuel.
In the February 2013 NHSM final rule (78 FR 9173), EPA noted that the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) and the American Wood Council submitted a letter with supporting information on December 6, 2012, seeking a categorical non-waste listing and clarification letter for CTRTs combusted in any unit.
While this information was useful, it was not sufficient for the EPA to propose that CTRTs be listed categorically as a non-waste fuel at that time. Therefore, EPA requested that additional information be provided, and indicated that if this additional information supported and supplemented the representations made in the December 2012 letter, EPA would expect to propose a categorical non-waste listing for CTRTs. The requested information included:
• A list of industry sectors, in addition to forest product mills, that burn railroad ties for energy recovery,
• The types of boilers (
• The traditional fuels and relative amounts (
• Laboratory analyses for contaminants known or reasonably suspected to be present in creosote-treated railroad ties, and contaminants known to be significant components of creosote, specifically polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (
As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, the February 2016 final rule stated that EPA had reviewed the information submitted from stakeholders regarding CTRTs and determined that the information supported a categorical determination for those materials under certain conditions which were promulgated in that rule (see 40 CFR 241.4(a)(7)). The final rule preamble language also referenced an August 21, 2015 letter to Barnes Johnson where TWC requested that the Agency move forward on a subset of materials that were identified in the April 2013 petition (
As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, the November 1, 2016 proposed OTRT rule was based on TWC submitted letters and supporting documents requesting a categorical non-waste fuel listing for OTRTs. The information supporting the proposal and the comments received indicated that these materials have been processed, and meet legitimacy criteria including management as a valuable commodity, meaningful heating value and contaminants at levels comparable to or less than those in the traditional fuels that these combustion units are designed to burn as fuel. In this final rule, the Agency is listing, as categorical non-wastes, processed OTRTs when used as fuels. The rationale for this listing is discussed in detail in the Section D.
For units combusting copper naphthenate-borate and/or copper naphthenate railroad ties, such materials could be combusted as non-waste fuels in units designed to burn biomass, biomass and fuel oil, or biomass and coal under CAA 112 standards. For units combusting railroad ties containing creosote, including creosote-borate or any mixtures of ties containing creosote, borate and copper naphthenate, such materials must be burned in combustion units that are designed to burn, both, biomass and fuel oil in order for the material to be considered a non-waste fuel. The Agency would consider combustion units to meet this requirement if the unit combusts fuel oil as part of normal operations and not solely as part of start up or shut down operations. Units combusting ties mixed with creosote that are designed to burn biomass and fuel oil may also be designed to burn coal under this categorical non-waste fuel listing.
Consistent with, and for the same reasons as the approach for CTRTs outlined in the February 2016 final rule (81 FR 6725), units combusting railroad ties treated with creosote-borate (or other combination mixtures of railroad ties containing creosote, borate and copper naphthenate) in units designed to burn biomass and fuel oil, could also combust those materials in units at major pulp and paper mills or units at power production facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD (Boiler MACT), that combust such ties and had been designed to burn biomass and fuel oil, but are modified (
• Must be combusted in existing (
• Must comprise no more than 40 percent of the fuel that is used on an annual heat input basis.
These conditions will also apply if an existing unit designed to burn fuel oil and biomass (at a power production facility or pulp and paper mill) is modified to burn natural gas at some point in the future.
Units combusting ties mixed with creosote that are designed to burn biomass and fuel oil, but have switched from fuel oil to natural gas, may also be designed to burn coal under this categorical non-waste fuel listing.
The approach for railroad ties treated with creosote-borate (or other mixtures of treated railroad ties containing creosote, borate and copper naphthenate) addresses only the circumstance where contaminants in these railroad ties are comparable to or less than the traditional fuels the combustion unit was originally designed to burn (both fuel oil and biomass) but that design was modified in order to combust natural gas. The approach is not a general means to circumvent the contaminant legitimacy criterion by allowing combustion of any NHSM with elevated contaminant levels,
Information indicating that these railroad ties alone or in the combination mixtures are an important part of the fuel mix because of the consistently lower moisture content and higher Btu value, benefit the combustion units with significant swings in steam demand, therefore suggesting that discard is not occurring. The Agency believes it appropriate to balance other relevant factors in this categorical non-waste determination and to decide that the switching to the cleaner natural gas would not render these materials a waste fuel.
This determination is consistent with the February 2016 rule, and is based on the historical usage of CTRT as a product fuel in stoker, bubbling bed, fluidized bed and hybrid suspension grate boilers (
When deciding whether an NHSM should be listed as a categorical non-waste fuel in accordance with 40 CFR 241.4(b)(5), EPA first evaluates whether or not the NHSM has been discarded, and if not discarded, whether or not the
Information submitted by petitioners regarding OTRTs removed from service and processed was analogous to that for CTRTs. Specifically, OTRTs removed from service are sometimes temporarily stored in the railroad right-of-way or at another location selected by the removal/reclamation company. This means that not all OTRTs originate from crossties removed from service in the same year; some OTRTs are processed from crossties removed from service in prior years and stored by railroads or removal/reclamation companies until a contract for reclamation is in place.
EPA reiterates its position from the February 8, 2016 (81 FR 6725) final rule regarding cases where a railroad or reclamation company waits for more than a year to realize the value of OTRTs as a fuel. The Agency again concludes that OTRTs are removed from service and stored in a railroad right-of-way or location for long periods of time, that is, a year or longer without a determination regarding their final end use (
Since the OTRTs removed from service are considered discarded because they can be stored for long periods of time without a final determination regarding their final end use, to be considered a non-waste fuel they must be processed,
• Contaminants (
• Removal of contaminant metals occurs again at the reclamation facility using magnets; such removal may occur in multiple stages;
• The fuel characteristics of the material are improved when the crossties are ground or shredded to a specified size (typically 1-2 inches) due to increased surface area. The final size depends on the particular needs of the end-use combustor. The grinding may occur in one or more phases; and
• Once the contaminant metals are removed and the OTRTs are ground, there may be additional operations to bring the material to a specified size.
EPA can list a discarded NHSM as a categorical non-waste fuel if it has been “sufficiently processed,” and meets the legitimacy criteria. The three legitimacy criteria to be evaluated are: (1) The NHSM must be managed as a valuable commodity, (2) the NHSM must have a meaningful heating value and be used as a fuel in a combustion unit to recover energy, and (3) the NHSM must have contaminants or groups of contaminants at levels comparable to or less than those in the traditional fuel the unit is designed to burn.
Data submitted
At the reprocessing center, pieces are again inspected, sorted, and non-combustible materials are removed. Combustible pieces then undergo size reduction and possible blending with compatible combustibles. Once the OTRTs meet the end use specification, they are then sold directly to the end-use combustor for energy recovery. OTRTs are delivered to the end-use combustors via railcar and/or truck similar to delivery of traditional biomass fuels.
After receipt, OTRTs are stockpiled similar to analogous biomass fuels (
Since the storage of the processed material does not exceed reasonable time frames and the processed ties are handled/treated similar to analogous biomass fuels by end-use combustors, OTRTs meet the criterion for being managed as a valuable commodity.
EPA received the following information for the heating values of processed OTRTs: 6,867 Btu/lb for creosote-borate; 7,333 Btu/lb for copper naphthenate; 5,967 Btu/lb for copper naphthenate-borate; 5,232 Btu/lb for mixed railroad ties containing 56% creosote, 41% creosote-borate, 1% copper naphthenate, 2% copper naphthenate-borate; and 7,967 Btu/lb for mixed ties containing 25% creosote, 25% creosote borate, 25% copper naphthenate and 25% copper
For each type of OTRT, EPA has compared the September 2015 data submitted on contaminant levels by petitioners to contaminant data for biomass/untreated wood, and fuel oil. In response to comments on the proposal, EPA has also taken the September 2015 data and compared them to coal. The petitioner's data included samples taken from 15 different used creosote-borate ties, 15 different copper naphthenate-borate ties, 15 creosote ties, and 15 copper naphthenate ties. Each type of tie sample was divided into three groups of five tie samples each. This resulted in 12 total groups corresponding to the four different types ties. Each group was then isolated, mixed together, processed into a fuel-type consistency, and shipped to the laboratory for analysis.
Use of these types of ties are relatively new compared to creosote, so few of these OTRT have transitioned to fuel use at this time, but we expect more in the future. To simulate that transition over time, three samples of unequally-blended tie material (56% creosote, 41% creosote-borate, 1% copper naphthenate, 2% copper naphthenate-borate) and three samples of equally blended tie material (25% creosote, 25% creosote-borate, 25% copper naphthenate, 25% copper naphthenate-borate) were analyzed. The lab analyzed three samples of each of the processed tie treated with creosote, creosote-borate, copper naphthenate and copper naphthenate-borate. In addition, the lab analyzed three samples of equally-blended tie material, three samples of unevenly-blended tie material, and three samples of untreated wood for a total of 18 samples.
In addition to September 2015 data, copper naphthenate-borate, and copper naphthenate test data had also been submitted in conjunction with TWC's earlier December 4, 2013 petition and are included in the following tables. As noted in section II.B of this preamble, the 2013 data did not have details on the number of samples collected. In addition, sulfur was measured using leachable anion techniques that do not provide results of the total contaminant content, and heat content was not measured. Therefore, the Agency's decisions are based on the complete data submitted in 2015 supplemented by the 2013 data. The results of the analysis of the 2015 and 2013 data are shown in the following tables.
As indicated, railroad ties treated with copper naphthenate have contaminants that are comparable to or less than those in biomass/untreated wood, fuel oil or coal. Given that these railroad ties are a type of wood biomass material, such ties can be combusted in units designed to burn biomass, biomass and fuel oil, or biomass and coal.
As indicated, railroad ties treated with copper naphthenate-borate have contaminants that are comparable to or less than those in biomass/untreated wood, fuel oil (see discussion of grouping of SVOCs, 78 FR 9146, February 7, 2013) or coal. Given that these railroad ties are a type of treated wood biomass, such ties can be combusted in units designed to burn biomass, or biomass and fuel oil, or biomass and coal.
In the contaminant comparison, EPA considered two scenarios. In the first scenario, where a combustion unit is designed to only burn biomass or coal, EPA compared contaminant levels in creosote-borate treated railroad ties to contaminant levels in biomass/untreated wood and coal. In this scenario, the total SVOC levels can reach 39,000 ppm, driven by high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
In the second scenario, a combustion unit is designed to burn both, biomass/untreated wood and fuel oil as well as coal. As previously mentioned, SVOCs are present in creosote-borate railroad ties (up to 39,000 ppm) at levels within the range observed in fuel oil (up to 54,700 ppm). Therefore, creosote-borate railroad ties have comparable contaminant levels as compared to other fuels combusted in units designed to burn both biomass/untreated wood and fuel oil, and as such, meet this criterion if used in facilities that are designed to burn both, biomass/untreated wood and fuel oil.
As stated in the preamble to the February 7, 2013, NHSM final rule, combustors may burn NHSMs as a product fuel if the contaminants are comparable to or lower than a traditional fuel the unit is designed to burn (78 FR 9149). Combustion units are often designed to burn multiple traditional fuels, and some units can and do rely on different fuel types at different times based on availability of fuel supplies, market conditions, power demands, and other factors. Under these circumstances, it is arbitrary to restrict the combustion for energy recovery of NHSMs based on contaminant comparison to only one traditional fuel if the unit could burn a second traditional fuel chosen due to such changes in fuel supplies, market conditions, power demands or other factors. If a unit can burn both a solid and liquid fuel, then comparison to either fuel would be appropriate.
In order to make comparisons to multiple traditional fuels, units must be designed to burn those fuels. If a facility compares contaminants in an NHSM to a traditional fuel a unit is not designed to burn, and that material is highly contaminated, a facility would then be able to burn excessive levels of waste components in the NHSM as a means of discard. Such NHSMs would be considered wastes regardless of any fuel value (78 FR 9149, February 7, 2013).
In the mixed railroad ties scenarios above, as previously discussed, SVOCs are present (up to 17,000 ppm) at levels well within the range observed in fuel oil (up to 54,700 ppm). Therefore, railroad ties mixed with creosote, borate and copper naphthenate have comparable contaminant levels to biomass and fuel oil, and as such, meet this criterion if used in combustion units that are designed to burn both of those traditional fuels. Such units may also be designed to burn coal.
The data collection supporting the OTRT categorical non-waste determination has been based on two rounds of data submittals by TWC, followed by EPA questions and TWC responses on the data provided. The process of developing the data set is described below and all materials provided by TWC are available in the docket to this rulemaking.
The TWC requested a categorical determination that all types of treated wood were non-waste fuels and submitted data on various wood preservative types, specifically, those referred to as OTRTs, in their April 3, 2013 petition letter (see docket EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0248-0019). However, the contaminant comparison data presented in the petition were incomplete and not based on established analytical data. The EPA response requested submittal of additional analytical data to determine contaminant concentrations in the OTRT.
In November 2013, TWC responded to EPA's request, submitting laboratory reports on analyses of various
In August 2015, TWC performed additional sampling and analyses to address these deficiencies in the data. In response to EPA's concerns, TWC developed a sampling program in which 15 OTRT railroad ties of each preservative type were collected from various geographical areas. These 15 ties were then separated into three 5-tie groups, then processed into a boiler-fuel consistency using commercial processing techniques. A sample of each 5-tie group was then shipped to an independent laboratory for analysis, thereby producing 3 data points for each preservative type. TWC also prepared two blends: One with equal portions of creosote, creosote-borate, copper naphthenate, and copper naphthenate-borate to estimate projected future ratios; and the second a weighted blend of these tie types in proportion to current usage ratios of each preservative chemistry. These blends samples were analyzed in triplicate, for a total of 15 samples being analyzed (
The EPA reviewed the 2015 test data, which was provided by TWC on September 11, 2015, and provided TWC with additional follow-up questions and clarifications, including the specific sources of the railroad ties. TWC's response noted the sources of railroad ties for each chemistry and indicated that the railroad ties generally originated in the southeast, but there are also ties from Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Kentucky represented within the TWC data set. Chlorine is not part of any of the preservative chemistries, and was not detected in any of the samples analyzed.
The EPA also noted some exceptions and flags within the analytical report, such as sample coolers upon receipt at the lab were outside the required temperature criterion; surrogate recoveries for semi-volatile samples (which represent extraction efficiency within a sample matrix) were sometimes lower or higher than those for samples containing creosote-treated wood; and dilution factors (dilution is used when the sample is higher in concentration than can be analyzed) for creosote-treated wood samples were high (up to 800). The laboratory noted these issues in the report narrative, but concluded that there were no corrective actions necessary. EPA requested further information on these issues noted in the report narrative, as well as supporting quality assurance documentation from the laboratories.
With respect to surrogate recoveries and dilutions, the lab indicated that the high dilutions were required for the creosote-containing matrix to avoid saturation of the detector instrument.
Neither copper nor borate are currently listed as HAPs under the Clean Air Act, and thus are not defined as contaminants under NHSM regulations section 241.2. or used for contaminant comparison in meeting legitimacy criteria (see 78 FR 9139-9143, February 7, 2013).
Under the Clean Water Act, EPA's Office of Water developed the Lead and Copper Rule which became effective in 1991 (56 FR 26460, June 7, 1991). This rule set a limit of 1.3 ppm copper concentration in 10% of customer taps sampled as an action level for public water systems. Exceedances of this limit require additional treatment steps in order to reduce drinking water corrosivity and prevent leaching of these metals (including copper) from plumbing and distribution systems. EPA's Office of Water also issued a fact sheet for copper under the Clean Water Act section 304(a) titled the Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria.
EPA also investigated whether there were any concerns that copper and borate can react to form polychlorinated dibenzodioxin and dibenzofurans (PCDD/PCDF) during the combustion process. Specific studies evaluating copper involvement in dioxins and furans formation in municipal or medical waste incinerator flue gas have been conducted.
Generally, borates have a low toxicity and should not be a concern from a health risk perspective.
Copper has some acute human health effects, but these exposures appear to be the result of direct drinking water or cooking-related intake. We anticipate the only possible routes that copper releases to the environment could result from burning copper naphthenate treated ties would be stormwater runoff from the ties during storage and deposition from boiler emissions. As mentioned earlier, the majority of copper in combusted material appears to remain in the bottom ash, so human health effects from inhalation of fly ash and environmental effects from deposition of copper-containing fly ash are likely very low. Further, the amount of copper remaining in the railroad tie after its useful life may be greatly reduced from the original content due to weathering, and facilities manage the processed shredded railroad tie material in covered areas to prevent significant moisture swings. Therefore, we do not expect impacts from copper in stormwater runoff from the storage of the copper naphthenate treated ties.
The Agency solicited comments in the proposed rule on non-waste fuel categorical determinations as described previously. The Agency also specifically requested comments on the following:
• Whether railroad ties with
• Should a particular
• Whether these OTRTs are combusted in units designed to burn coal in lieu of, or in addition to biomass and fuel oil, and whether the contaminant comparisons to meet legitimacy criteria should include comparisons to coal;
• In light of the data and sampling history described above, whether the quality of data is adequate to support the proposed determination;
• Additional data that should be considered in making the comparability determinations for OTRT.
• Additional information on the copper borate literature review.
Summaries of comments received in response to solicitations listed above are presented below, along with EPA's responses to the comments. All additional comments received are addressed in EPA's Response to Comments document, located in the docket EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0248.
For purposes of contaminant comparisons under NHSM, contaminants in railroad ties treated with creosote-borate and mixtures of creosote, copper naphthenate and copper naphthenate-borate treated railroad ties are not comparable to those contaminants found in biomass. Contaminants in such railroad ties would, however, be comparable to contaminants in fuel oil. Accordingly, such ties are categorical non-wastes fuels only when they are processed and then combusted in: (i) Units designed to burn both biomass and fuel oil and (ii) units at major source pulp and paper mills or power producers that had been designed to burn biomass and fuel oil, but are modified in order to use natural gas instead of fuel oil. Mixtures of treated railroad ties containing creosote cannot be combusted in biomass only units. The Agency requested comment as to whether OTRTs used as fuel containing de minimis levels of creosote, should be allowed to be combusted in biomass only units, and if so, what should the level be based on.
De minimis levels for OTRTs when combusted with creosote treated railroad ties (CTRTs) were also addressed in the February 2016 final NHSM rule (81 FR 6738, February 8, 2016). As discussed in the preamble, TWC had requested that the Agency move forward on a subset of materials (
The processing of OTRTs is similar to CTRTs (
Regarding a definition for de minimis amounts of contaminants remaining in OTRT, the agency stated in the February 2013 NHSM rule that it was not appropriate to identify specific concentration levels. Rather, the agency interprets de minimis as that term is commonly understood; (
Based on the factors discussed above, the Agency has concluded, that OTRT containing
Specifically, the commenter noted the following:
• For the copper naphthenate treated ties, the maximum contaminant levels in coal are higher for all contaminants except naphthalene and 16-PAHs. However, the semi-volatile organic compound (SVOC) grouping level (which includes naphthalene and 16-PAHs) is higher for coal than copper naphthenate treated ties.
• For the copper naphthenate-borate treated ties, the contaminant levels in coal are higher for all contaminants except naphthalene. However, the SVOC grouping level (which includes naphthalene) is higher for coal than copper naphthenate-borate treated ties.
• For the creosote-borate treated ties, the contaminant levels in coal are higher for all contaminants except naphthalene, biphenyl, 16-PAHs, and the SVOC grouping overall. However, the SVOC grouping contaminant level is higher for fuel oil than creosote-borate treated ties.
The commenter requested that EPA expand the proposed non-waste fuel definition, based on these results, to include copper naphthenate and copper naphthenate-borate treated ties combusted in units designed to burn coal during normal operations. The commenter further requested that EPA include creosote-borate treated ties combusted in units designed to burn coal and fuel oil during normal operations.
Thus, EPA is listing the following OTRTs as categorical non-waste fuels:
• Copper naphthenate treated railroad ties combusted in units designed to burn biomass only, biomass and fuel oil, or biomass and coal.
• Copper naphthenate-borate treated railroad ties combusted in units designed to burn biomass only, biomass and fuel oil or biomass and coal.
• Creosote-borate treated railroad ties (and mixtures of creosote, borate and copper naphthenate treated railroad ties) combusted only in units designed to burn both biomass and fuel oil, or units that have switched to natural gas from fuel oil; and where such units may also be designed to burn coal.
To address the commenter's concerns regarding variability, EPA has reviewed the TWC 2015 data presented in the petition and calculated the 90, 95, and 99 percent upper prediction limits (UPLs) for contaminants listed in the comparison charts to see how they compare with the TWC's data. EPA calculated UPLs for metals, sulfur, naphthalene, and 16-PAH.
Second, as also discussed in the proposed rulemaking preamble, the dilution amounts used for semivolatile (which behave similarly to pentachlorophenol) was necessarily larger for the creosote-containing preservative mixes, which influenced the detection levels for semivolatile analytes. The detection levels for pentachlorophenol follow this trend, where the copper naphthenate and copper naphthenate-borate pentachlorophenol method reporting limits are 30 and 28 ppm, respectively, and the mixtures with creosote being an order of magnitude higher. This increase in the method reporting limit for these creosote-containing samples is not an indication that pentachlorophenol is present in the creosote-containing samples, but more of procedural necessity due to the method and the equipment used for the analysis, as the laboratory pointed out in their results narrative.
As discussed in the OTRT proposal, direct stormwater runoff from material storage and deposition from boiler emissions are expected to be the only paths for copper to be released to the environment from burning copper naphthenate treated ties. Additionally, there is evidence that copper in the presence of chlorine could lead to polychlorinated dioxin/furan (PCDD/PCDF) through a reaction pathway involving CuCl and CuCl
Beyond expanding the list of NHSMs that categorically qualify as non-waste fuels, this rule does not change the effect of the NHSM regulations on other programs as described in the March 21, 2011 NHSM final rule (76 FR 15456), as amended on February 7, 2013 (78 FR 9138) and February 8, 2016 (81 FR 6688). Refer to section VIII of the preamble to the March 21, 2011 NHSM final rule
This final rule does not change the relationship to state programs as described in the March 21, 2011 NHSM final rule. Refer to section IX of the preamble to the March 21, 2011 NHSM final rule
No federal approval procedures for state adoption of this final rule are included in this rulemaking action under RCRA subtitle D. While states are not required to adopt regulations promulgated under RCRA subtitle D, some states incorporate federal regulations by reference or have specific state statutory requirements that their state program can be no more stringent than the federal regulations. In those cases, the EPA anticipates that, if required by state law, the changes being made in this document will be incorporated (or possibly adopted by authorized state air programs) consistent with the state's laws and administrative procedures.
As discussed in previous sections, this final rulemaking establishes a categorical non-waste determination for OTRT. The determination allows OTRTs to be combusted as a product fuel in units subject to the CAA section 112 emission standards (provided the conditions of the categorical listing are met) without being subject to a detailed case-by-case analysis of the material by individual combustion facilities. The rule provides additional clarity and direction for generators, potential users and owners or operators of combustion facilities.
The proposed OTRT rule stated that the action was definitional in nature, and any costs or benefits accrued to the corresponding Clean Air Act rules. In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4 requirement that EPA analyze the costs and benefits of regulations, EPA prepared an economic assessment (EA) document
Based on public comments, information from stakeholders and the Executive Order 13771 signed January 30, 2017, the Agency has expanded the EA for the final rule to take into account additional cost savings. In considering this information, EPA determined that the final OTRT rule EA should consider the potential aggregate cost savings to industry when these materials are regulated as non-waste fuels (because of this rulemaking), rather than as solid waste. In addition, the Agency is ensuring that its cost benefit analysis is consistent with the OMB guidance for E.O. 13771. To do that, we made necessary adjustments to the final OTRT rule EA.
For purposes of the final rule EA, combustion facilities that wish to add OTRT to their fuel mix now or in the future are assumed to operate under CAA 112 standards. OTRTs currently represent a small fraction of treated railroad ties combusted for fuel, but that amount will increase over time. The EA concludes that absent the final categorical rule, OTRT would be considered a solid waste and combustion facilities that wish to add OTRT to their fuel mix would have to incur the costs associated with upgrading to section 129.
The EA concludes that the categorical rule, which designates OTRT as non-wastes under certain conditions, results in a cost savings from these avoided costs of section 129 upgrades for facilities adding OTRT to the fuel mix. The unit-level cost savings were estimated, on average, to be approximately $266,000 per year. EPA estimates that industry-wide undiscounted costs savings from not having to operate under CAA Section 129 regulations when combusting these OTRTs for energy on the magnitude of between $3.1 million and $24 million annually over the next 20 years. In addition, the assessment indicated that the increased regulatory clarity associated with the action could stimulate increased product fuel use for one or more of these NHSMs, potentially resulting in upstream life cycle benefits associated with reduced extraction of selected virgin materials.
Another, more likely scenario is also addressed in the EA, where, absent a categorical non-waste fuel determination for OTRTs, combustors decide not to combust OTRTs and do not perform any air pollution control upgrades to meet section 129 standards. In this scenario, OTRTs are instead disposed of in landfills and virgin biomass is purchased by the combustor to make up for the additional heat content that OTRTs would provide. EPA
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review because it may raise novel policy issues. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis, “Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts for the Final Rule—Categorical Non-Waste Determination for Selected Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSMs): Creosote-Borate Treated Railroad Ties, Copper Naphthenate Treated Railroad Ties, and Copper Naphthenate-Borate Treated Railroad Ties,” is available in the docket. Interested persons were asked to submit comments on this document but none were received.
This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA as this action only adds three new categorical non-waste fuels to the NHSM regulations. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2050-0205.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The addition of three NHSMs to the list of categorical non-waste fuels is expected to indirectly reduce materials management costs. In addition, this action will reduce regulatory uncertainty associated with these materials and help increase management efficiency. We have therefore concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
This action contains no Federal mandates as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. UMRA generally excludes from the definition of “Federal intergovernmental mandate” duties that arise from participation in a voluntary Federal program. Affected entities are not required to manage the final additional NHSMs as non-waste fuels. As a result, this action may be considered voluntary under UMRA. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of section 202 or 205 of the UMRA
This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. In addition, this proposal will not impose direct compliance costs on small governments.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. Potential aspects associated with the categorical non-waste fuel determinations under this final rule may invoke minor indirect tribal implications to the extent that entities generating or consolidating these NHSMs on tribal lands could be affected. However, any impacts are expected to be negligible. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in the Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. Based on the following discussion, the Agency found that populations of children near potentially affected boilers are either not significantly greater than national averages, or in the case of landfills, may potentially result in reduced discharges near such populations.
The final rule, in conjunction with the corresponding CAA rules, may indirectly stimulate the increased fuel use of one or more the three NHSMs by providing enhanced regulatory clarity and certainty. This increased fuel use may result in the diversion of a certain quantity of these NHSMs away from current baseline management practices, which is assumed to be landscape use or being sent to landfills. Some crossties may also go to CISWI units. Any corresponding disproportionate impacts among children would depend upon whether children make up a disproportionate share of the population living near the affected units. Therefore, to assess the potential indirect disproportionate effect on children, we conducted a demographic analysis for this population group surrounding CAA section 112 major source boilers, municipal solid waste landfills, and construction and demolition (C&D) landfills for the Major and Area Source Boilers rules and the CISWI rule.
* U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics of People Living Near Waste Facilities. Washington DC: Government Printing Office 1995.
** Mohai P, Saha R. “Reassessing Racial and Socio-economic Disparities in Environmental Justice Research”. Demography. 2006;43(2): 383-399.
** Mennis, Jeremy “Using Geographic Information Systems to Create and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Population and Risk for Environmental Justice Analysis” Social Science Quarterly, 2002, 83(1):281-297.
** Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R
For major source boilers, our findings indicate that the percentage of the population in these areas under age 18 years is generally the same as the national average.
This action is not “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significance adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. The selected NHSMs affected by this final action are not generated in quantities sufficient to significantly (adversely or positively) impact the supply, distribution, or use of energy at the national level.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This is because the overall level of emissions, or the emissions mix from boilers, are not expected to change significantly because the three NHSMs categorically listed as non-waste fuels are generally comparable to the types of fuels that these combustors would otherwise burn. Furthermore, these units remain subject to the protective standards established under CAA section 112.
Our environmental justice demographics assessment conducted for the prior rulemaking
In addition to the demographics assessment described previously, we also considered the potential for non-combustion environmental justice concerns related to the potential incremental increase in NHSMs diversions from current baseline management practices. These may include the following:
•
•
•
Finally, this rule, in conjunction with the corresponding CAA rules, may help accelerate the abatement of any existing stockpiles of the targeted NHSMs. To the extent that these stockpiles may represent negative human health or environmental implications, minority and/or low-income populations that live near such stockpiles may experience marginal health or environmental improvements. Aesthetics may also be improved in such areas.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Non-hazardous
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6903, 6912, 7429.
(a) * * *
(8) Creosote-borate treated railroad ties, and mixtures of creosote, borate and/or copper naphthenate treated railroad ties that are processed and then combusted in the following types of units. Processing must include, at a minimum, metal removal and shredding or grinding.
(i) Units designed to burn both biomass and fuel oil as part of normal operations and not solely as part of start-up or shut-down operations; and
(ii) Units at major source pulp and paper mills or power producers subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, designed to burn biomass and fuel oil as part of normal operations and not solely as part of start-up or shut-down operations, but are modified (
(A) Creosote-borate and mixed creosote, borate and copper naphthenate treated railroad ties must be burned in existing (
(B) Creosote-borate and mixed creosote, borate and copper naphthenate treated railroad ties can comprise no more than 40 percent of the fuel that is used on an annual heat input basis.
(iii) Units meeting requirements in paragraph (a)(8)(i) or (ii) of this section that are also designed to burn coal.
(9) Copper naphthenate treated railroad ties that are processed and then combusted in units designed to burn biomass, biomass and fuel oil, or biomass and coal. Processing must include at a minimum, metal removal, and shredding or grinding.
(10) Copper naphthenate-borate treated railroad ties that are processed and then combusted in units designed to burn biomass, biomass and fuel oil, or biomass and coal. Processing must include at a minimum, metal removal, and shredding or grinding.
(a)(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) Spent lead-acid batteries that are being reclaimed (40 CFR part 266, subpart G).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is publishing this final rule to revise the formaldehyde standards for composite wood products regulations . The revision updates the incorporation by reference of multiple voluntary consensus standards that have been updated, superseded, or withdrawn, and provides a technical correction to allow panel producers to correlate their approved quality control test method to the ASTM E1333-14 test chamber, or, upon showing equivalence, the ASTM D6007-14 test chamber.
This final rule is effective on February 7, 2018. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 7, 2018.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0245, is available at
You may be affected by this final rule if you manufacture (including import), sell, supply, offer for sale, test, or work with certification firms that certify hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard, particleboard, and/or products containing these composite wood materials in the United States. 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:
• Veneer, plywood, and engineered wood product manufacturing (NAICS code 3212).
• Manufactured home (mobile home) manufacturing (NAICS code 321991).
• Prefabricated wood building manufacturing (NAICS code 321992).
• Furniture and related product manufacturing (NAICS code 337).
• Furniture merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 42321).
• Lumber, plywood, millwork, and wood panel merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 42331).
• Other construction material merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 423390),
• Furniture stores (NAICS code 4421).
• Building material and supplies dealers (NAICS code 4441).
• Manufactured (mobile) home dealers (NAICS code 45393).
• Motor home manufacturing (NAICS code 336213).
• Travel trailer and camper manufacturing (NAICS code 336214).
• Recreational vehicle (RV) dealers (NAICS code 441210).
• Recreational vehicle merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 423110).
• Engineering services (NAICS code 541330).
• Testing laboratories (NAICS code 541380).
• Administrative management and general management consulting services (NAICS code 541611).
• All other professional, scientific, and technical services (NAICS code 541990).
• All other support services (NAICS code 561990).
• Business associations (NAICS code 813910).
• Professional organizations (NAICS code 813920).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action, please consult the technical person listed under
Following the publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
• APA—the Engineered Wood Association,
• Composite Panel Association (CPA),
• American National Standards Institute (ANSI),
• American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO),
• Japanese Standards Association (JIS), and
• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
EPA is taking action to update several voluntary consensus standards in the formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products final rule to reflect the current editions that are in-use by regulated entities and industry stakeholders. EPA believes that this action is warranted to facilitate regulated entities using the most up-to-date voluntary consensus standards to comply with the final rule.
Having withdrawn the direct final rule, EPA is taking action based on the companion Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which includes consideration of all public comments submitted in response to the provisions discussed in the direct final rule and companion proposal. EPA is issuing this final rule and a Response to Comments document which addresses all of the comments received on this action. The response to comments document can be found in the supporting documents section of the final rule section of the docket for this action.
EPA adopts all of the updated versions of the standards referenced in Table 1 in this rule. Any future versions or updates to withdrawn/superseded standards will be announced by EPA through a separate
EPA is also taking final action on several technical corrections to references to the ISO/IEC 17020:2012(E) in the testing correlation requirements under § 770.20, as discussed below. The Agency did not receive any adverse comment related specifically to these technical corrections.
EPA received approval to incorporate ISO/IEC 17020: 2012(E) by reference into part 770, as part of the December 2016 final rule, instead of the 1998 version that was originally proposed. However, that updated version was not reflected everywhere in that published rule. This rule corrects those remaining instances and ensures that all of the references are to the version of the standard that is approved for incorporation by reference.
EPA is also finalizing a revision at § 770.20(d)(2)(i) to allow the correlation of the tests conducted through the quality control methods listed in § 770.20(b) to either ASTM E1333-14 or, upon a showing of equivalence, ASTM D6007-14 test chamber tests. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) under its Air Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) has approved the use of ASTM D6007-14 test chambers that have previously shown equivalence under § 770.20(d) to an ASTM E1333-14 test chamber to be correlated to other mill quality control method tests listed in § 770.20(b). According to CARB staff, this is the commonly used method for conducting correlation between test methods. Several third-party certifiers, regulated entities and their associations expressed the importance of allowing mill quality control tests to be correlated to ASTM D6007-14 test chambers as they currently operate under the CARB ATCM using this approach and not allowing test chamber correlation in this manner under TSCA Title VI would significantly disrupt product certifications and supply chain processes. EPA agrees that significant disruptions would occur, including problems with completing testing which would lead to significant shortfalls in supply of TSCA Title VI certified product if the correlation of mill quality control tests were allowed only through the use of ASTM E1333-14 test chambers. Additionally, based on consultations with the CARB staff, allowing correlation to be established through the use of ASTM D6007-14 test chambers in addition to the ASTM E1333-14 test chambers does not result in a decrease in testing reliability and yields comparable results if the ASTM D6007-14 test chambers have shown equivalence to the ASTM E1333-14 test chambers. To maintain consistency with this revision, EPA is also updating the definition of
To aid mills and third-party certifiers in understanding the practical implications of this revision, and to help them implement this revision into the TSCA Title VI program, the Agency is clarifying that data generated beginning December 12, 2016 using an ASTM E1333-10 test chamber, or, upon showing equivalence, an ASTM D6007-02 test chamber, and a panel producer's quality control (QC) test method under § 770.20(b)(1) may be used to establish the required annual correlation. Data generated beginning December 12, 2016 from a panel producer's QC test method under § 770.20(b)(1) that has been correlated to either an ASTM E1333-10 test chamber, or, upon showing equivalence, an ASTM D6007-02 test chamber, may be used to certify compliant composite wood products under the TSCA Title VI program until a new annual correlation is required. Beginning on February 7, 2018, data used to establish correlations must be generated using an ASTM E1333-14 test chamber, or, upon showing equivalence, an ASTM D6007-14 test chamber and the panel producer's QC test method under § 770.20(b)(1).
These regulations are established under authority of Section 601 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2697.
This final rule is not subject to the 30-day delay of effective date generally required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) because the amendments relieve a restriction.
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA because it does not create any new reporting or recordkeeping obligations. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2070-0185.
The Agency certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This rule updates the voluntary consensus standards that were incorporated by reference in the final rule to the most current versions. The updated versions of the standards are substantially similar to the previous versions. EPA expects that many small entities are already complying with the updated versions of the standards listed in Table
This action would relieve these entities of the burden of having to also demonstrate compliance with outdated versions of these standards. This action also provides an amendment to the equivalence and correlation requirements at § 770.20 that would reduce testing burdens without compromising the integrity of the data collected by panel producers and third party certifiers to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards in the final rule. This action will relieve or have no net regulatory burden for directly regulated small entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This final rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action involves voluntary consensus standards, many of which EPA is directed to use by TSCA Title VI. Voluntary consensus standards identified in the statute have been updated by the voluntary consensus standard management bodies which antiquates the statutorily required versions.
EPA is updating voluntary consensus standards as issued by ASTM International, ANSI, APA, HPVA, NIST, BSI, and JIS. Copies of the standards referenced in the regulatory text have been placed in the docket for this rule. Additionally, each of these standards is available for inspection at the OPPT Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA, West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. EPA has determined that all of these standards are reasonably available to the class of persons affected by this rulemaking. The following voluntary consensus standards are being updated:
(a) APA, CPA, and HPVA standards. Copies of these standards may be obtained from the specific publisher, as noted below, or from the American National Standards Institute, 1899 L Street NW, 11th Floor, Washington, DC 20036, or by calling (202) 293-8020, or at
1. ANSI/APA A190.1-2017,
2. ANSI A208.1-2016,
3. ANSI A208.2-2016,
4. ANSI/HPVA HP-1-2016,
(b) ASTM material. Copies of these materials may be obtained from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or by calling (877) 909-ASTM, or at
1. ASTM E1333-14,
2. ASTM D6007-14,
3. ASTM D5582-14,
4. ASTM D5456-14b,
5. ASTM D5055-16,
(c) CEN materials. Copies of these materials are not directly available from the European Committee for Standardization, but from one of CEN's National Members, Affiliates, or Partner Standardization Bodies. To purchase a standard, go to CEN's website,
1. BS EN 12460-3: 2015,
2. BS EN 12460-5: 2015,
(d) Copies of JIS A 1460: 2015,
(e) NIST material. Copies of these materials may be obtained from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) by calling (800) 553-6847 or from the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO). To purchase a NIST publication you must have the order number. Order numbers may be obtained from the Public Inquiries Unit at (301) 975-NIST. Mailing address: Public Inquiries Unit, NIST, 100 Bureau Dr., Stop 1070, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070. If you have a GPO stock number, you can purchase printed copies of NIST publications from GPO. GPO orders may be mailed to: U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, placed by telephone at (866) 512-1800 (DC Area only: (202) 512-1800), or faxed to (202) 512-2104. Additional information is available online at:
1. PS 1-09,
2. PS 2-10,
EPA has determined that 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, as specified in Executive Order 12898. As addressed in Unit II.A., this action would not materially alter the final rule as published, and will update existing voluntary consensus standards incorporated by reference in the final rule and provide an amendment to the testing requirements at § 770.20.
This action is subject to the CRA, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Section 808 of the CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. As required by 5 U.S.C. 808(2), this determination is supported by a brief statement in Unit III.
Environmental protection, Formaldehyde, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Third-party certification, Toxic substances, Wood.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2697(d).
(c) * * *
(3) Structural plywood, as specified in PS 1-09, Structural Plywood (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(4) Structural panels, as specified in PS 2-10, Performance Standard for Wood-Based Structural-Use Panels (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(5) Structural composite lumber, as specified in ASTM D5456-14b, Standard Specification for Evaluation of Structural Composite Lumber Products (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(7) Glued laminated lumber, as specified in ANSI A190.1-2017, Standard for Wood Products—Structural Glued Laminated Timber (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(8) Prefabricated wood I-joists, as specified in ASTM D5055-16, Standard Specification for Establishing and Monitoring Structural Capacities of Prefabricated Wood I-Joists (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
The revisions read as follows:
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) A review of the approach that the TPC laboratory will use for establishing correlation or equivalence between ASTM E1333-14 and ASTM D6007-14, if used, (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99) or allowable formaldehyde test methods listed under § 770.20.
(F) A review of the accreditation credentials of the TPC laboratory, including a verification that the laboratory has been accredited to ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E) (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99) with a scope of accreditation to include this part—Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products and the formaldehyde test methods ASTM E1333-14 and ASTM D6007-14, if used, by an EPA TSCA Title VI Laboratory AB (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(i)
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Be, or have a contract with a laboratory that is, accredited by an EPA TSCA Title VI Laboratory AB to ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E) (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99) with a scope of accreditation to include this part—Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products—and the formaldehyde test methods ASTM E1333-14 and ASTM D6007-14, if used (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99);
(v) Have demonstrated experience in performing or verifying formaldehyde emissions testing on composite wood products, including experience with test method ASTM E1333-14 and ASTM D6007-14, if used, (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99), and experience evaluating correlation between test methods. Applicant TPCs that have demonstrated experience with test method ASTM D6007-14 only, must be contracting testing with a laboratory that has a large chamber and demonstrate its experience with ASTM E1333-14.
(2) * * *
(iv) A copy of the TPC laboratory's certificate of accreditation from an EPA TSCA Title VI Laboratory AB to ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E) (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99) with a scope of accreditation to include this part—Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products—and the formaldehyde test methods ASTM E1333-14 and ASTM D6007-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99), if used;
(viii) A description of the TPC's experience with test method ASTM E1333-14 and/or ASTM D6007-14, if used, (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99), and experience evaluating correlation between test methods. Applicant TPCs that have experience with test method ASTM D6007-14 only, must be contracting testing with a laboratory that has a large chamber and describe its experience with ASTM E1333-14; and
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Verify each panel producer's quality control test results compared with test results from ASTM E1333-14 and ASTM D6007-14, if used, (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99) by having the TPC laboratory conduct quarterly tests and evaluate test method equivalence and correlation as required under § 770.20;
(v) * * *
(C) Notification of a panel producer exceeding its established QCL for more than two consecutive quality control tests within 72 hours of the time that the TPC becomes aware of the second exceedance. The notice must include the product type, dates of the quality control tests that exceeded the QCL, quality control test results, ASTM E1333-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99) or ASTM D6007-14 method (incorporated by reference, see
(b) The emission standards are based on test method ASTM E1333-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99), and are as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) At least five tests conducted under the supervision of an EPA TSCA Title VI TPC pursuant to test method ASTM E1333-14 or ASTM D6007-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99). Test results obtained by ASTM D6007-14 must include a showing of equivalence in accordance with § 770.20(d)(1);
(2) * * *
(iii) At least five tests conducted under the supervision of an EPA TSCA Title VI TPC pursuant to test method ASTM E1333-14 or ASTM D6007-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99). Test results obtained by ASTM D6007-14 must include a showing of equivalence in accordance with § 770.20(d)(1);
(a) * * *
(3) At least one test conducted under the supervision of an EPA TSCA Title VI TPC pursuant to test method ASTM E1333-14 or ASTM D6007-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99). Test results obtained by ASTM D6007-14 must include a showing of equivalence in accordance with § 770.20(d)(1); and
(a) * * *
(3) At least two tests conducted under the supervision of an EPA TSCA Title VI TPC pursuant to test method ASTM E1333-14 or ASTM D6007-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99). Test results obtained by ASTM D6007-14 must include a showing of equivalence in accordance with § 770.20(d)(1); and
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) ASTM D6007-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(ii) ASTM D5582-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(iii) BS EN ISO 12460-3:2015 E (Gas Analysis Method) (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(vi) BS EN ISO 12460-5:2015 E (Perforator Method) (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(vii) JIS A 1460:2015(E) (24-hr Desiccator Method) (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(c) * * *
(1)
(d)
(1)
(i)
(B) For the ASTM D6007-14 method (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99), each comparison sample shall consist of testing specimens representing portions of panels similar to the panels tested in the ASTM E1333-14 method (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99) and matched to their respective ASTM E1333-14 method (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99) comparison sample result. The ratio of air flow to sample surface area specified in ASTM D6007-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99) must be used.
(C) The five comparison sample must consist of testing a minimum of five sample sets as measured by the ASTM E1333-14 method (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(i)
(a)
(5) ANSI A190.1-2017, Standard for Wood Products—Structural Glued Laminated Timber, Approved January 24, 2017, IBR approved for § 770.1(c).
(6) ANSI A208.1-2016, Particleboard, Approved May 12, 2016, IBR approved for § 770.3.
(7) ANSI A208.2-2016, Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) for Interior Applications, Approved May 12, 2016, IBR approved for § 770.3.
(8) ANSI/HPVA HP-1-2016, American National Standard for Hardwood and Decorative Plywood, Approved January 12, 2016, IBR approved for § 770.3.
(b) * * *
(1) ASTM D5055-16, Standard Specification for Establishing and Monitoring Structural Capacities of Prefabricated Wood I-Joists, Approved June 1, 2016, IBR approved for § 770.1(c).
(2) ASTM D5456-14b, Standard Specification for Evaluation of Structural Composite Lumber Products, Approved October 1, 2014, IBR approved for § 770.1(c).
(3) ASTM D5582-14, Standard Test Method for Determining Formaldehyde Levels from Wood Products Using a Desiccator, Approved-August 1, 2014, IBR approved for § 770.20(b).
(4) ASTM D6007-14, Standard Test Method for Determining Formaldehyde Concentrations in Air from Wood Products Using a Small-Scale Chamber, Approved October 1, 2014, IBR approved for §§ 770.3, 770.7(a) through (c), 770.15(c), 770.17(a), 770.18(a), and 770.20(b) through (d).
(5) ASTM E1333-14, Standard Test Method for Determining Formaldehyde Concentrations in Air and Emission Rates from Wood Products Using a Large Chamber, Approved October 1, 2014, IBR approved for §§ 770.3, 770.7(a) through (c), 770.10(b), 770.15(c), 770.17(a), 770.18(a), and 770.20(c) and (d).
(c) * * *
(1) BS EN ISO 12460-3:2015 E, Wood-based panels.—Determination of formaldehyde release—Part 3: Gas analysis method, November 2015, IBR approved for § 770.20(b).
(2) BS EN ISO 12460-5:2015 E, Wood based panels.—Determination of formaldehyde release—Part 5: Extraction method (called the perforator method), December 2015, IBR approved for § 770.20(b).
(f) * * *
(1) JIS A 1460:2015(E), Determination of the emission of formaldehyde from building boards—Desiccator method, First English edition, published 2015-10, IBR approved for § 770.20(b).
(g) * * *
(1) PS 1-09, Structural Plywood, May 2010, IBR approved for §§ 770.1(c) and 770.3.
(2) PS 2-10, Performance Standard for Wood-Based Structural-Use Panels, June
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) publishes its final List of Fisheries (LOF) for 2018, as required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The LOF for 2018 reflects new information on interactions between commercial fisheries and marine mammals. NMFS must classify each commercial fishery on the LOF into one of three categories under the MMPA based upon the level of mortality and serious injury of marine mammals that occurs incidental to each fishery. The classification of a fishery on the LOF determines whether participants in that fishery are subject to certain provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, observer coverage, and take reduction plan (TRP) requirements.
The applicability date of this final rule is March 9, 2018.
Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Kristy Long, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8402; Allison Rosner, Greater Atlantic Region, 978-281-9328; Jessica Powell, Southeast Region, 727-824-5312; Dan Lawson, West Coast Region, 562-980-3209; Suzie Teerlink, Alaska Region, 907-586-7240; Kevin Brindock, Pacific Islands Region, 808-725-5146. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the hearing impaired may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
Section 118 of the MMPA requires NMFS to place all U.S. commercial fisheries into one of three categories based on the level of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals occurring in each fishery (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(1)). The classification of a fishery on the LOF determines whether participants in that fishery may be required to comply with certain provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, observer coverage, and take reduction plan requirements. NMFS must reexamine the LOF annually, considering new information in the Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) and other relevant sources, and publish in the
The definitions for the fishery classification criteria can be found in the implementing regulations for section 118 of the MMPA (50 CFR 229.2). The criteria are also summarized here.
The fishery classification criteria consist of a two-tiered, stock-specific approach that first addresses the total impact of all fisheries on each marine mammal stock and then addresses the impact of individual fisheries on each stock. This approach is based on consideration of the rate, in numbers of animals per year, of incidental mortalities and serious injuries of marine mammals due to commercial fishing operations relative to the potential biological removal (PBR) level for each marine mammal stock. The MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362 (20)) defines the PBR level 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 (OSP). This definition can also be found in the implementing regulations for section 118 of the MMPA (50 CFR 229.2).
Additional details regarding how the categories were determined are provided in the preamble to the final rule implementing section 118 of the MMPA (60 FR 45086; August 30, 1995).
Because fisheries are classified on a per-stock basis, a fishery may qualify as one category for one marine mammal stock and another category for a different marine mammal stock. A fishery is typically classified on the LOF at its highest level of classification (
The tier analysis requires a minimum amount of data, and NMFS does not have sufficient data to perform a tier analysis on certain fisheries. Therefore, NMFS has classified certain fisheries by analogy to other Category I or II fisheries that use similar fishing techniques or gear that are known to cause mortality or serious injury of marine mammals, or according to factors discussed in the final LOF for 1996 (60 FR 67063; December 28, 1995) and listed in the regulatory definition of a Category II fishery: In the absence of reliable information indicating the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals by a commercial fishery, NMFS will determine whether the incidental mortality or serious injury is “frequent,” “occasional,” or “remote” by evaluating other factors
Further, eligible commercial fisheries not specifically identified on the LOF are deemed to be Category II fisheries until the next LOF is published (50 CFR 229.2).
The LOF includes a list of marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in each commercial fishery. The list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured includes “serious” and “non-serious” documented injuries as described later in the List of Species and/or Stocks Incidentally Killed or Injured in the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean sections. To determine which species or stocks are included as incidentally killed or injured in a fishery, NMFS annually reviews the information presented in the current SARs and injury determination reports. The SARs are based upon the best available scientific information and provide the most current and inclusive information on each stock's PBR level and level of interaction with commercial fishing operations. The best available scientific information used in the SARs reviewed for the 2018 LOF generally summarizes data from 2010-2014. NMFS also reviews other sources of new information, including injury determination reports, bycatch estimation reports, observer data, logbook data, stranding data, disentanglement network data, fishermen self-reports (
For fisheries with observer coverage, species or stocks are generally removed from the list of marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured if no interactions are documented in the five-year timeframe summarized in that year's LOF. For fisheries with no observer coverage and for observed fisheries with evidence indicating that undocumented interactions may be occurring (
The best available information on the level of observer coverage and the spatial and temporal distribution of observed marine mammal interactions is presented in the SARs. Data obtained from the observer program and observer coverage levels are important tools in estimating the level of marine mammal mortality and serious injury in commercial fishing operations. Starting with the 2005 SARs, each Pacific and Alaska SAR includes an appendix with detailed descriptions of each Category I and II fishery on the LOF, including the observer coverage in those fisheries. For Atlantic fisheries, this information can be found in the LOF Fishery Fact Sheets. The SARs generally do not provide detailed information on observer coverage in Category III fisheries because, under the MMPA, Category III fisheries are generally not required to accommodate observers aboard vessels due to the remote likelihood of mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. Fishery information presented in the SARs' appendices and other resources referenced during the tier analysis may include: Level of observer coverage; target species; levels of fishing effort; spatial and temporal distribution of fishing effort; characteristics of fishing gear and operations; management and regulations; and interactions with marine mammals. Copies of the SARs are available on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources website at:
The LOF includes three tables that list all U.S. commercial fisheries by Category. Table 1 lists all of the commercial fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (including Alaska); Table 2 lists all of the commercial fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean; and Table 3 lists all U.S.-authorized commercial fisheries on the high seas. A fourth table, Table 4, lists all commercial fisheries managed under applicable TRPs or take reduction teams (TRTs).
Beginning with the 2009 LOF, NMFS includes high seas fisheries in Table 3 of the LOF, along with the number of valid High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (HSFCA) permits in each fishery. As of 2004, NMFS issues HSFCA permits only for high seas fisheries analyzed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The authorized high seas fisheries are broad in scope and encompass multiple specific fisheries identified by gear type. For the purposes of the LOF, the high seas fisheries are subdivided based on gear type (
HSFCA permits are valid for five years, during which time Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) can change. Therefore, some vessels/participants may possess valid HSFCA permits without the ability to fish under the permit because it was issued for a gear type that is no longer authorized under the most current FMP. For this reason, the number of HSFCA permits
Starting with the 2010 LOF, NMFS developed summary documents, or fishery fact sheets, for each Category I and II fishery on the LOF. These fishery fact sheets provide the full history of each Category I and II fishery, including: When the fishery was added to the LOF; the basis for the fishery's initial classification; classification changes to the fishery; changes to the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the fishery; fishery gear and methods used; observer coverage levels; fishery management and regulation; and applicable TRPs or TRTs, if any. These fishery fact sheets are updated after each final LOF and can be found under “How Do I Find Out if a Specific Fishery is in Category I, II, or III?” on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources' website:
Owners of vessels or gear engaging in a Category I or II fishery are required under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(2)), as described in 50 CFR 229.4, to register with NMFS and obtain a marine mammal authorization to lawfully take non-endangered and non-threatened marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. Owners of vessels or gear engaged in a Category III fishery are not required to register with NMFS or obtain a marine mammal authorization.
NMFS has integrated the MMPA registration process, implemented through the Marine Mammal Authorization Program (MMAP), with existing state and Federal fishery license, registration, or permit systems for Category I and II fisheries on the LOF. Participants in these fisheries are automatically registered under the MMAP and are not required to submit registration or renewal materials.
In the Pacific Islands, West Coast, and Alaska regions, NMFS will issue vessel or gear owners an authorization certificate via U.S. mail or with their state or Federal license or permit at the time of issuance or renewal.
In the West Coast Region, authorization certificates may be obtained from the website
In the Alaska Region, authorization certificates may be obtained by visiting the Alaska Regional Office website
In the Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS will issue vessel or gear owners an authorization certificate via U.S. mail automatically at the beginning of each calendar year. Certificates may also be obtained by visiting the Greater Atlantic Regional Office website
In the Southeast Region, NMFS will issue vessel or gear owners an authorization certificate via U.S. mail automatically at the beginning of each calendar year. Vessel or gear owners can receive additional authorization certificates by contacting the Southeast Regional Office at 727-209-5952 or by visiting the Southeast Regional Office website
The authorization certificate, or a copy, must be on board the vessel while it is operating in a Category I or II fishery, or for non-vessel fisheries, in the possession of the person in charge of the fishing operation (50 CFR 229.4(e)). Although efforts are made to limit the issuance of authorization certificates to only those vessel or gear owners that participate in Category I or II fisheries, not all state and Federal license or permit systems distinguish between fisheries as classified by the LOF. Therefore, some vessel or gear owners in Category III fisheries may receive authorization certificates even though they are not required for Category III fisheries.
Individuals fishing in Category I and II fisheries for which no state or Federal license or permit is required must register with NMFS by contacting their appropriate Regional Office (see
In Alaska regional and Greater Atlantic regional fisheries, registrations of vessel or gear owners are automatically renewed and participants should receive an authorization certificate by January 1 of each new year. Certificates can also be obtained from the region's website. In Pacific Islands regional fisheries, vessel or gear owners receive an authorization certificate by January 1 for state fisheries and with their permit renewal for Federal fisheries. In West Coast regional fisheries, vessel or gear owners receive authorization either with each renewed state fishing license in Washington and Oregon, with their permit renewal for Federal fisheries (the timing of which varies based on target species), or via U.S. mail. Vessel or gear owners who participate in fisheries in these regions and have not received authorization certificates by January 1 or with renewed fishing licenses must contact the appropriate NMFS Regional Office (see
In accordance with the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(e)) and 50 CFR 229.6, any vessel owner or operator, or gear owner or operator (in the case of non-vessel fisheries), participating in a fishery listed on the LOF must report to NMFS all incidental mortalities and injuries of marine mammals that occur during commercial fishing operations, regardless of the category in which the fishery is placed (I, II, or III) within 48 hours of the end of the fishing trip or,
Mortality/injury reporting forms and instructions for submitting forms to NMFS can be found at:
Individuals participating in a Category I or II fishery are required to accommodate an observer aboard their vessel(s) upon request from NMFS. MMPA section 118 states that the Secretary is not required to place an observer on a vessel if the facilities for quartering an observer or performing observer functions are so inadequate or unsafe that the health or safety of the observer or the safe operation of the vessel would be jeopardized; thereby authorizing the exemption of vessels too small to safely accommodate an observer from this requirement. However, U.S. Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, or Gulf of Mexico large pelagics longline vessels operating in special areas designated by the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan implementing regulations (50 CFR 229.36(d)) will not be exempted from observer requirements, regardless of their size. Observer requirements can be found in 50 CFR 229.7.
Table 4 provides a list of fisheries affected by TRPs and TRTs. TRP regulations can be found at 50 CFR 229.30 through 229.37. A description of each TRT and copies of each TRP can be found at:
Information regarding the LOF and the MMAP, including: Registration procedures and forms; current and past LOFs; descriptions of each Category I and II fishery and some Category III fisheries; observer requirements; and marine mammal mortality/injury reporting forms and submittal procedures; may be obtained at:
NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298, Attn: Allison Rosner;
NMFS, Southeast Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, Attn: Jessica Powell;
NMFS, West Coast Region, Long Beach Office, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213, Attn: Dan Lawson;
NMFS, Alaska Region, Protected Resources, P.O. Box 22668, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Suzie Teerlink; or
NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818, Attn: Kevin Brindock.
NMFS reviewed the marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury information presented in the SARs for all fisheries to determine whether changes in fishery classification are warranted. The SARs are based on the best scientific information available at the time of preparation, including the level of mortality and serious injury of marine mammals that occurs incidental to commercial fishery operations and the PBR levels of marine mammal stocks. The information contained in the SARs is reviewed by regional Scientific Review Groups (SRGs) representing Alaska, the Pacific (including Hawaii), and the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. The SRGs were created by the MMPA to review the science that informs the SARs, and to advise NMFS on marine mammal population status, trends, and stock structure, uncertainties in the science, research needs, and other issues.
NMFS also reviewed other sources of new information, including marine mammal stranding data, observer program data, fishermen self-reports, reports to the SRGs, conference papers, FMPs, and ESA documents.
The LOF for 2018 was based on, among other things, stranding data; fishermen self-reports; and SARs, primarily the 2016 SARs, which are based on data from 2010-2014. The SARs referenced in this LOF include: 2014 (80 FR 50599; August 20, 2015), 2015 (81 FR 38676; June 14, 2016), 2016 (82 FR 29039; June 27, 2017). The SARs are available at:
NMFS received letters containing comments on the proposed LOF for 2018 (82 FR 47424; October 12, 2017) from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission); five non-governmental organizations (Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Hawaii Longline Association (HLA), Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance (SEAFA), Southeast Alaska Sperm Whale Avoidance Project (SEASWAP), and Turtle Island Restoration Network (TIRN); and two individuals. Responses to substantive comments are below; comments on actions not related to the LOF are not included.
Criteria for evaluating large whale injuries include three types of entanglements. Two of these types are “constricting wrap,” a serious injury (SI), and “loose wrap, bridled or draped gear,” a non-serious injury (NSI). If documentation of a confirmed entanglement is inadequate to assign an entanglement to either of these types a third category is used, “evidence of entanglement.” Events falling in this category are prorated. To prorate, the number of events assigned to this category within the assessment period is multiplied by 0.75. This value was calculated based on 114 documented entanglement events with known outcomes that occurred between 2004 and 2008, of which 85 (75 percent) resulted in the whales' deteriorating health or death. Although more severe or prolonged entanglements may be more likely to be reported, the 0.75 prorating reflects the probability that some confirmed entanglement reports lacking detail will be of minor events.
SEASWAP and SEAFA are correct that using a prorate value of 0.75 for sperm whale entanglements reflects assumptions about the fate of the entangled animals. We would welcome data analyses or other information from SEASWAP on sperm whale interactions with longline fisheries that would help inform future injury determinations. The 0.75 value is based on the best available information.
The other injury determinations referenced by SEASWAP are also consistent with NMFS' policy and guidelines for distinguishing serious from non-serious injury. The vessel strike that left a piece of whale skin on a vessel's hull was categorized as a “superficial laceration” and a vessel strike under “vessel any size less than 10 knots,” both of which are considered non-serious injuries. Injuries to small cetaceans, such as beluga whales, are assigned to a category from a list specific to small cetaceans. The beluga entangled in gillnet that was later freed from gear was assigned to the “anchored, immobilized, entangled, or entrapped before being freed without gear attached” category. This category does not have a defined injury value, and instead requires a case-specific assessment. NMFS evaluated the record of the injury and considered it a non-serious injury because the animal was able to surface while entangled and was confirmed to be free of gear when released.
In response to SEASWAP's and SEAFA's comments, we will reevaluate these entanglements and injury determinations; if we determine any changes to the injury determinations due to these entanglements are necessary, they will be reviewed consistent with NMFS policy and reported in the 2018 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports and Human-
The methodology for estimating bycatch is explained in NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-260 (Breiwick 2013) and has not changed appreciably since that time. Specifically, the serious injuries are extrapolated only within a stratum defined by the NMFS statistical area, three categories of vessel size (>125, between 60 and 125, <60), and three time periods (January to April, May through August, September through December). The two serious injuries that were extrapolated in 2012 occurred in vessels between 60 and 125 feet, whereas the one serious injury in 2013 that was extrapolated occurred on a vessel <60 feet, so the observer coverage within that stratum is much lower, which is what is actually used to extrapolate the serious injury. We do not extrapolate observed bycatch in one statum to strata where no bycatch was observed. For simplicity, we do not report the observer coverage within the extrapolated strata, but instead report observer coverage for the entire fishery across all strata. Therefore, it is not possible for the reader to extrapolate the observed bycatch to estimate the total bycatch (see Breiwick 2013).
We thank the commenter for pointing out that we omitted the identity of the killer whale stock associated with a dead killer whale reported to NMFS in 2015 that was entangled with CA Dungeness crab gear. NMFS is currently reviewing the available information regarding the identification of the stock of killer whales to which this individual belongs. Once this information has been evaluated and reported in a future SAR, NMFS will add the appropriate stock of killer whales to the list of marine mammal stocks incidentally killed or injured by the CA Dungeness crab fishery in the LOF. As stated previously, entanglement information from 2016 has not yet been evaluated for M/SI and will not be used to inform the list of marine mammal stocks incidentally killed or injured in any U.S. west coast fisheries at this time.
NMFS acknowledges that the most recent SAR suggests that because some Western North Pacific gray whales occur in U.S. waters, there is a possibility these whales could be killed or injured by ship strikes or entangled in fishing gear within U.S. waters. However, while
The 2018 LOF is based on the 2016 SARs, which report fishery interactions from 2010-2014; this is the best scientific and commercial information available for the time period examined. As reported in the 2016 SAR, 12 false killer whales were taken within the Hawaiian EEZ between 2010 and 2014, ten of those occurred within the range of the pelagic stock, and two occurred within an overlap zone that included the range of more than one false killer whale stock. Applying the proration methods described in detail in the 2016 SAR for takes in overlap zones, NMFS estimates a five-year average mortality and serious injury level of 0.1 MHI insular and 0.4 NWHI false killer whales per year incidental to the Hawaii-based deep-set longline fishery from 2010-2014 (Carretta
NMFS renames the newly classified fisheries, “AK BSAI groundfish troll” and the “AK Gulf of Alaska groundfish troll,” as listed in the proposed LOF for 2018, to “AK BSAI groundfish hand troll and dinglebar troll” and “AK Gulf of Alaska groundfish hand troll and dinglebar troll,” respectively. This change is the result of public comment on the proposed rule and maintains consistency with the State of Alaska fishery permits.
NMFS corrects the estimated number of vessels/persons for the AK Southeast shrimp pot fishery (Table 1) from 210, as listed in the proposed LOF for 2018, to 99 in the final LOF based on a reanalysis of permit data.
NMFS corrects the estimated number of vessels/persons for the Gulf of Maine, U.S. Mid-Atlantic tuna, shark, swordfish hook-and-line/harpoon in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean (Table 2) from 3,084, as listed in the proposed LOF for 2018, to 2,846 in the final LOF based on a review of permit data. Permits for this fishery are based on target species rather than gear type, so these numbers indicate the total number of fishers that have the potential to use the specified gear type.
The following summarizes changes to the LOF for 2018, including the classification of fisheries, fisheries listed, the estimated number of vessels/persons in a particular fishery, and the species and/or stocks that are incidentally killed or injured in a particular fishery. NMFS re-classifies two fisheries in the LOF for 2018. Additionally, NMFS adds two fisheries to the LOF and removes 12 fisheries from the LOF. NMFS makes changes to the estimated number of vessels/persons and list of species and/or stocks killed or injured in certain fisheries. The classifications and definitions of U.S. commercial fisheries for 2018 are identical to those provided in the LOF for 2017 with the changes discussed below. State and regional abbreviations used in the following paragraphs include: AK (Alaska), BSAI (Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands), CA (California), DE (Delaware), FL (Florida), GOA (Gulf of Alaska), GMX (Gulf of Mexico), HI (Hawaii), MA (Massachusetts), ME (Maine), NC (North Carolina), NY (New York), OR (Oregon), RI (Rhode Island), SC (South Carolina), VA (Virginia), WA (Washington), and WNA (Western North Atlantic).
NMFS reclassifies the CA thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet (≥14 inch (in) mesh) fishery from Category I to Category II.
NMFS reclassifies the Category III AK Gulf of Alaska sablefish longline fishery to Category II based on M/SI of North Pacific sperm whales.
NMFS adds the AK BSAI halibut longline fishery as a Category III fishery.
NMFS adds the AK Gulf of Alaska sablefish pot fishery as a Category III fishery.
NMFS removes the following Category III fisheries from the LOF:
NMFS clarifies that the Category II AK BSAI rockfish trawl fishery includes sablefish as a target species.
NMFS adds a superscript “1” to the CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whale to indicate it is driving the Category II classification of the CA spiny lobster fishery.
NMFS renames the Category III AK salmon purse seine (excluding salmon purse seine fisheries listed elsewhere) fishery to AK salmon purse seine (Prince William Sound, Chignik, Alaska Peninsula) fishery.
NMFS clarifies that the Category III AK Gulf of Alaska rockfish trawl fishery includes sablefish as a target species.
NMFS renames the Category III AK food/bait herring trawl fishery to AK Kodiak food/bait herring otter trawl fishery.
NMFS renames the Category III AK shrimp otter trawl and beam trawl (statewide and Cook Inlet) fishery to AK shrimp otter trawl and beam trawl fishery.
NMFS renames the Category III AK State-managed waters of Cook Inlet, Kachemak Bay, Prince William Sound, Southeast AK groundfish trawl fishery to AK State-managed waters of Prince William Sound groundfish trawl fishery.
NMFS combines the Category III AK Aleutian Islands sablefish pot fishery in the LOF with the Category III AK Bering Sea sablefish pot fishery for consistency with other regional designations in the LOF. The combined fishery is named the AK BSAI sablefish pot fishery.
NMFS separates the Category III AK miscellaneous finfish handline/hand troll and mechanical jig fishery into several fisheries by gear and geography for improved fishery categorization of potential impacts to marine mammals. The new Category III fishery names are: (1) AK BSAI groundfish jig, (2) AK BSAI groundfish hand troll and dinglebar troll, (3) AK Gulf of Alaska groundfish jig, (4) AK Gulf of Alaska groundfish hand troll and dinglebar troll.
NMFS renames the Category III AK North Pacific halibut handline/hand troll and mechanical jig fishery to AK halibut jig fishery for clarity and consistency.
NMFS renames the Category III AK urchin and other fish/shellfish fishery to AK miscellaneous invertebrates hand pick fishery for clarity and consistency.
NMFS makes an administrative change to the Category III Alaska scallop dredge fishery to be renamed AK scallop dredge for consistency.
NMFS updates the estimated number of vessels/persons in the Pacific Ocean (Table 1) as follows:
NMFS adds the Central North Pacific stock of humpback whale to the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category I Hawaii deep-set longline fishery.
NMFS adds the Hawaii stock of Kogia
NMFS adds the CA/OR/WA stock of Dall's porpoise to the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category I CA thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet (≥14 in mesh) fishery.
NMFS updates the estimated number of vessels/persons in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean (Table 2) as follows:
NMFS adds the Northern Gulf of Mexico stock of rough-toothed dolphin to the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category I Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagics longline fishery.
NMFS removes the WNA stock of white-sided dolphin from the species and/or stocks listed as incidentally killed or injured in the Category II Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl fishery.
NMFS adds the WNA stock of white-sided dolphin to the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fishery.
NMFS adds the WNA offshore stock of bottlenose dolphin to the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III Gulf of Maine, U.S., Mid-Atlantic tuna, shark, swordfish hook-and-line/harpoon fishery.
NMFS adds three stocks to the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean commercial passenger fishing vessel fishery. The three stocks are: (1) WNA stock of short-finned pilot whale and (2) Barataria Bay estuarine system stock and (3) Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau stock of bottlenose dolphins.
NMFS corrects three administrative errors in Table 2. Under species and/or stocks listed as incidentally killed or injured in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagic longline fishery, NMFS updates the stock name for Atlantic spotted dolphin from “GMX continental and oceanic” to “Northern GMX”. Second, in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean commercial passenger fishing vessel fishery, NMFS updates the stock name for bottlenose dolphin from “Southern SC/GA coastal” to “SC/GA coastal”. Lastly, NMFS removes the WNA stocks of Risso's dolphin and white-sided dolphin from the species and/or stocks listed as incidentally injured or killed in the Category I Mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery.
NMFS removes the Category II Atlantic highly migratory species drift gillnet fishery from the LOF as there are currently no participants.
NMFS designates the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in a fishery from “undetermined” to “no information” for clarity that no data are available on mortalities or injuries incidental to a particular fishery.
NMFS updates to the estimated number of vessels/persons on the High Seas (Table 3) as follows:
NMFS adds the Hawaii stock of Kogia
NMFS adds the Central North Pacific stock of humpback whale to the list of
The following tables set forth the list of U.S. commercial fisheries according to their classification under section 118 of the MMPA. Table 1 lists commercial fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (including Alaska), Table 2 lists commercial fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean, Table 3 lists commercial fisheries on the high seas, and Table 4 lists fisheries affected by TRPs or TRTs.
In Tables 1 and 2, the estimated number of vessels or persons participating in fisheries operating within U.S. waters is expressed in terms of the number of active participants in the fishery, when possible. If this information is not available, the estimated number of vessels or persons licensed for a particular fishery is provided. If no recent information is available on the number of participants, vessels, or persons licensed in a fishery, then the number from the most recent LOF is used for the estimated number of vessels or persons in the fishery. NMFS acknowledges that, in some cases, these estimates may be inflations of actual effort. For example, the State of Hawaii does not issue fishery-specific licenses, and the number of participants reported in the LOF represents the number of commercial marine license holders who reported using a particular fishing gear type/method at least once in a given year, without considering how many times the gear was used. For these fisheries, effort by a single participant is counted the same whether the fisherman used the gear only once or every day. In the Mid-Atlantic and New England fisheries, the numbers represent the potential effort for each fishery, given the multiple gear types for which several state permits may allow. Changes made to Mid-Atlantic and New England fishery participants will not affect observer coverage or bycatch estimates, as observer coverage and bycatch estimates are based on vessel trip reports and landings data. Tables 1 and 2 serve to provide a description of the fishery's potential effort (state and Federal). If NMFS is able to extract more accurate information on the gear types used by state permit holders in the future, the numbers will be updated to reflect this change. For additional information on fishing effort in fisheries found on Table 1 or 2, contact the relevant regional office (contact information included above in
For high seas fisheries, Table 3 lists the number of valid HSFCA permits currently held. Although this likely overestimates the number of active participants in many of these fisheries, the number of valid HSFCA permits is the most reliable data on the potential effort in high seas fisheries at this time. As noted previously in this LOF, the number of HSFCA permits listed in Table 3 for the high seas components of fisheries that also operate within U.S. waters does not necessarily represent additional effort that is not accounted for in Tables 1 and 2. Many vessels holding HSFCA permits also fish within U.S. waters and are included in the number of vessels and participants operating within those fisheries in Tables 1 and 2.
Tables 1, 2, and 3 also list the marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured (seriously or non-seriously) in each fishery based on SARs, injury determination reports, bycatch estimation reports, observer data, logbook data, stranding data, disentanglement network data, fishermen self-reports (
In Tables 1 and 2, there are several fisheries classified as Category II that have no recent documented mortalities or serious injuries of marine mammals, or fisheries that did not result in a mortality or serious injury rate greater than 1 percent of a stock's PBR level based on known interactions. NMFS has classified these fisheries by analogy to other Category I or II fisheries that use similar fishing techniques or gear that are known to cause mortality or serious injury of marine mammals, as discussed in the final LOF for 1996 (60 FR 67063; December 28, 1995), and according to factors listed in the definition of a “Category II fishery” in 50 CFR 229.2 (
There are several fisheries in Tables 1, 2, and 3 in which a portion of the fishing vessels cross the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) boundary and therefore operate both within U.S. waters and on the high seas. These fisheries, though listed separately between Table 1 or 2 and Table 3, are considered the same fisheries on either side of the EEZ boundary. NMFS has designated those fisheries in each table by a “*” after the fishery's name.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) at the proposed rule stage that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No comments were received on that certification, and no new information has been discovered to change that conclusion. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.
This rule contains collection-of-information (COI) requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The COI for the registration of individuals under the MMPA has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 0648-0293 (0.15 hours per report for new registrants). The requirement for reporting marine mammal mortalities or injuries has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 0648-0292 (0.15 hours per report). These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the COI. Send comments regarding these reporting burden estimates or any other aspect of the COI, including suggestions for reducing burden, to NMFS and OMB (see
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 COI, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that COI displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.
This rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
In accordance with the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, NMFS determined that publishing this LOF qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. Issuance of this final rule is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion G7 of the Companion Manual, and we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances listed in Chapter 4 of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A that would preclude application of this categorical exclusion. If NMFS takes a management action, for example, through the development of a TRP, NMFS would first prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA), as required under NEPA, specific to that action.
This rule would not affect species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or their associated critical habitat. The impacts of numerous fisheries have been analyzed in various biological opinions, and this rule will not affect the conclusions of those opinions. The classification of fisheries on the LOF is not considered to be a management action that would adversely affect threatened or endangered species. If NMFS takes a management action, for example, through the development of a TRP, NMFS would consult under ESA section 7 on that action.
This rule would have no adverse impacts on marine mammals and may have a positive impact on marine mammals by improving knowledge of marine mammals and the fisheries interacting with marine mammals through information collected from observer programs, stranding and sighting data, or take reduction teams.
This rule would not affect the land or water uses or natural resources of the coastal zone, as specified under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory analysis; availability.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared a regulatory analysis to support the regulatory basis for a rulemaking to amend the NRC's regulations for the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors. This regulatory analysis is based on receipt of public comments for the preliminary draft regulatory analysis, which was issued in the
The regulatory analysis is available February 7, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0070 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Chris Howells,
The NRC staff has prepared a regulatory analysis for the regulatory basis to support a rulemaking that would amend the NRC's regulations for the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors. The NRC's goals in amending these regulations would be to provide for an efficient decommissioning process; reduce the need for exemptions from existing regulations; address other decommissioning issues deemed relevant by the NRC staff; and support the principles of good regulation, including openness, clarity, and reliability. The NRC is recommending rulemaking in the areas of emergency planning, physical security, cyber security, drug and alcohol testing, training requirements for certified fuel handlers, decommissioning trust funds, applicability of backfitting provisions, and offsite and onsite financial protection requirements and indemnity agreements. These revised requirements would formalize steps to transition a power reactor from operating status to decommissioning while reducing the need for exemptions and license amendments. The NRC staff is also recommending clarifying requirements regarding topics such as spent fuel management and environmental reporting.
Accompanying this rulemaking are updates to guidance that address aging management, the appropriate role of State and local governments in the decommissioning process, the level of NRC review of a licenee's Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report, the options for decommissioning, and the timeframe associated with decommissioning.
The regulatory analysis discusses the economic impact to the nuclear power industry, government, and society that would result from the rulemaking and guidance contemplated by the regulatory basis. The regulatory analysis discusses the cost benefit analysis that was completed for the various alternatives put forth by the staff, and shows that the staff's recommendation for rulemaking and guidance development is overall cost benefical to the nuclear power industry, government, and society.
The following table provides the quantified and non-quantified costs and benefits for the staff-recommended alternatives discussed in the regulatory basis for each area of decommissioning under specific decommissioning topics and regulatory approaches. The complete analysis discusses at length the NRC staff's process, alternatives considered, and evaluation of costs and benefits for each area of decommissioning.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of comment period extension.
The Department of Energy (DOE) published, on December 18, 2017, a Request for Information (RFI) seeking comments from interested parties to assist DOE in identifying potential modifications to its “Process Rule” for the development of appliance standards. The comment period for the RFI ends on February 16, 2018. Through this notice, DOE extends the comment period until March 2, 2018.
The comment period for the RFI published in the
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The docket web page can be found at
Caitlin Davis, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. Email:
As part of its implementation of, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” (January 30, 2017) and, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” (February 24, 2017), the Department of Energy (DOE) published a Request for Information (RFI), on December 18, 2017 (82 FR 59992), seeking comments from interested parties to assist DOE in identifying potential modifications to its “Process Rule” for the development of appliance standards, in an effort to achieve meaningful burden reduction while continuing to achieve the Department's statutory obligations in the development
The Department intends to move forward expeditiously with further actions to improve the “Process Rule”. Given the importance to DOE of receiving public input on means to make such improvements, however, DOE grants those requests and extends the comment period for an additional two weeks, until March 2, 2018.
The Secretary of Energy has approved the publication of this document.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of California regarding certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”). This submission addresses the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM
Any comments must arrive by March 9, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0177 at
Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3227,
Throughout this document, “we”, “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as the EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address structural SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. The EPA refers to the SIP submissions required by these provisions as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to the EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of individual state submissions may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. This proposed rule pertains to the infrastructure SIP requirements for interstate transport of air pollution.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the NAAQS, or interfere with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in any other state. This proposed rule addresses the two requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which we refer to as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state).
Each of the following NAAQS revisions triggered the requirement for states to submit infrastructure SIPs, including provisions to address interstate transport prongs 1 and 2. On September 21, 2006, the EPA revised the primary and secondary 24-hour NAAQS for PM
The EPA has issued several guidance documents and informational memos that inform the states' development and the EPA's evaluation of interstate transport SIPs for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These include the following memos relating to the NAAQS at issue in this proposed rule:
• Information on interstate transport SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (“Ozone Transport Memo”),
• Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update ozone transport modeling (“CSAPR Update Modeling”),
• Supplemental information on interstate transport SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (“Supplemental Ozone Transport Memo”),
• Guidance on infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2006 PM
• Information on interstate transport SIP requirements for the 2012 PM
For the 2006 PM
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted the “California Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision, Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)” on January 19, 2016 (“California Transport Plan” or “Plan”).
The California Transport Plan outlines the CAA interstate transport requirements, describes the State's and, to some degree, the local air districts' emission limits and other control measures, and presents its methodology for analyzing ozone, PM
We review the state's submission to see how it evaluates the transport of air pollution to other states for a given air pollutant, the types of information the state used in its analysis, how that analysis compares with prior EPA rulemaking, modeling, and guidance, and the conclusions drawn by the state. Taking stock of the state's submission, the EPA generally evaluates the interstate transport of a given pollutant through a stepwise process. The following discussion addresses the EPA's approach to evaluating interstate transport for regional pollutants such as ozone and PM
Typically, for assessing interstate transport for regional pollutants, such as PM
In some cases, we have identified these receptors by modeling air quality in a future year that is relevant to CAA attainment deadlines for a given NAAQS. This type of modeling has been
After identifying potential receptors, the EPA's second step for regional pollutants such as PM
Third, if warranted based on step 2, the EPA analyzes emission sources in the upwind state, including emission levels, state and federal measures, and how well such sources are controlled. We also review whether the applicable control measures are included in the SIP, consistent with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). For example, for ozone, this analysis has generally focused on the emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO
If contribution modeling is not available, we conduct a weight of evidence analysis. This analysis is based on a review of the state's submission and other available information, including air quality trends; topographical, geographical, and meteorological information; local emissions in downwind states and emissions from the upwind state; and existing and planned emission control measures in the state of interest. In CSAPR and for the 2012 PM
At this point of our analysis, if we conclude that the SIP contains adequate provisions to prohibit sources from emitting air pollutants that significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of a given NAAQS in any other state, the EPA may approve a submission that concludes that the state has sufficient measures to prohibit significant contribution to nonattainment, or interference with maintenance, of the NAAQS in any other state.
If the EPA concludes that that the SIP does not meet the CAA requirements, then the EPA must disapprove the state's submission with respect to that NAAQS, and the disapproval action triggers the obligation for the EPA to promulgate a FIP to address that deficiency. Following such a disapproval, the state has an opportunity to resolve any underlying
The California Transport Plan presents a weight of evidence analysis to assess whether emissions within the State contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. This analysis includes a review of the EPA's photochemical modeling data that were available at the time CARB developed its Plan (
CARB states that the EPA's Ozone Transport Memo considered an upwind state to be linked to a downwind state if the upwind state's projected contribution was over one percent of the NAAQS (
While acknowledging the possibility of some limited transport of ozone or its precursor pollutants, CARB believes that there are significant uncertainties in photochemical modeling of ozone transport in the western U.S.
Aside from the asserted modeling uncertainties, the Plan provides analyses of California's potential impacts and information regarding the Denver area and Phoenix receptors. For the Denver area nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the EPA's Ozone Transport Memo, CARB found it extremely unlikely that California emission sources would affect such receptors on high ozone days.
Regarding its trajectory analysis, CARB examined the potential for ozone or ozone precursor pollutants to travel from California to Colorado using the Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory model.
With respect to wildfires, CARB found an overall downward trend in ozone concentrations at the four Colorado receptors from 2003 to 2010 followed by increases in 2011-2013, which coincide with large increases in the acreage of wildland burned per year in Colorado (
CARB concludes that physical and chemical processes occurring over the complex terrain and the long distance from California to these receptors would significantly affect any air pollution traveling between the two states.
For the Phoenix, Arizona receptor, CARB states that, while the relatively shorter distance makes transport a possibility from southern California, high ozone days in Phoenix are predominantly driven by local contributions. CARB describes topography (
In addition, the California Transport Plan states that California has responded to each successive ozone NAAQS with increasingly stringent control measures and that CARB and other agencies' aggressive emission control programs will continue to benefit air quality in California and other states.
CARB highlights how its mobile source measures have often served as models for federal mobile source control elements and that California's legacy programs continue to provide current and future emission reductions from vehicles within California and elsewhere. Where California and federal rules have been harmonized, CARB has implemented rules to accelerate deployment of the cleanest available control technologies for heavy-duty trucks, buses, and construction equipment to achieve emission reductions more quickly. Appendix G of the California Transport Plan presents a list of regulatory actions taken since 1985 to reduce mobile source emissions. CARB also describes efforts underway to transition to near-zero vehicle emissions technologies and to review the state's goods movement (
The Plan concludes that neither the EPA's modeling, given CARB's concerns about wildfire and model performance, nor CARB's weight of evidence analysis indicates that California significantly contributes to nonattainment, or interferes with maintenance, of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, CARB concludes that California meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA agrees with the conclusion that California meets the CAA requirements for interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. However, our rationale differs from that presented in the California Transport Plan, as discussed below. First, we address CARB's assertions regarding ozone transport modeling uncertainties for identifying nonattainment and maintenance receptors in 2017 and linkages to California. We then discuss the EPA's CSAPR Update Modeling,
With respect to California's linkage to those maintenance receptors in Denver, we then present a general assessment of the emission sources in California, including mobile and stationary emission sources. We propose to find that control measures in the California SIP for mobile sources, large EGUs, and large non-EGU sources (
Given the role of regulatory monitoring data in the EPA's analysis of interstate transport, the regulatory monitoring performed by the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (Morongo) and the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians (Pechanga), as well as comments from Morongo and Pechanga during the EPA's rulemaking on California's interstate transport SIP for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM
The California Transport Plan asserts that uncertainty in the EPA's Ozone Transport Memo modeling derives from issues of complex terrain, wildfires, and model performance, and presents trajectory analyses to supplement these uncertainties. We consider each of these factors because they are important to the adequacy of the EPA's modeling data with respect to ozone transport in the western U.S.
We agree with CARB that the terrain in the western U.S. is complex and can enhance vertical mixing of air, serve as a barrier to transported air pollution, enhance accumulation of local emissions in basins and valleys, and influence air flows up, down, and across valleys. It is also true that California is a long distance (about 1,000 km) from the receptors identified in Colorado. The EPA used the CSAPR Update Modeling in a relative sense to project measured design values to 2017 and to quantify contributions from statewide 2017 anthropogenic emissions of NO
The EPA responded to CARB's comments regarding potential wildfire influences on modeling in our response to comments document for the CSAPR Update final rule (“CSAPR Update RTC”).
Regarding model performance, CARB states that there are limited monitoring data available to validate the EPA's ozone transport modeling. We discuss our ozone transport modeling platform in section V.A of the CSAPR Update, including our model performance assessment using measured ozone concentrations.
CARB states that the complex physical environment between California and Colorado limits the reproducibility of modeled transport of air pollution and that further analysis would be required to quantify California's contribution with confidence. We agree that such research could prove valuable, particularly with respect to implementing the more stringent 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Having considered the effects of complex terrain, wildfires, and any model performance in the EPA's ozone transport modeling for ozone levels throughout the continental U.S. (
The EPA noted in the CSAPR Update that there may be specific geographic factors in western states to consider in evaluating interstate transport and, given the near-term 2017 implementation timeframe, the EPA focused the CSAPR Update on eastern states.
As described in the California Transport Plan, the EPA's Ozone Transport Memo identified two nonattainment and two maintenance receptors in the Denver area and one maintenance receptor in Phoenix. Based on input received in response to our Ozone Transport Memo NODA and the CSAPR Update proposal, the EPA updated the ozone transport modeling to reflect the latest data and analysis (
The EPA's CSAPR Update Modeling projects that for the western U.S. in 2017 (outside of California), there are no nonattainment receptors and only three maintenance receptors located in the Denver, Colorado area. Notably, that modeling projects that Phoenix, Arizona will not have any receptors.
The modeling shows that other states also contribute above one percent of the NAAQS to these maintenance receptors. The EPA found that the average interstate contribution to ozone concentrations from all states upwind of these receptors ranged from 9.2 to 9.4 percent of the projected ozone design values.
The EPA has historically found that the one percent threshold is appropriate for identifying interstate transport linkages for states collectively contributing to downwind ozone nonattainment or maintenance problems because that threshold captures a high percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind receptors.
Regarding CARB's comparison of the average ratio of local to transported emissions in the East (1:2) versus the average ratio in the West (8:1), while we did not quantitatively evaluate the ratios presented in the California Transport Plan, we generally agree that there could be substantial differences in such
Given these data and comparisons, the EPA is proposing that the one percent threshold is also appropriate as an air quality threshold to determine whether California is “linked” to the three maintenance receptors in the Denver area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA is not necessarily determining that one percent of the NAAQS is always an appropriate threshold for identifying interstate transport linkages for all states in the West. For example, the EPA recently evaluated the impact of emissions from Arizona on two projected nonattainment receptors identified in California and concluded that, even though Arizona's modeled contribution was greater than one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, Arizona did not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, at those receptors.
Likewise, the EPA is not determining that because California contributes above the one percent threshold, it is necessarily making a significant contribution that warrants further reductions in emissions. As noted above, the one percent threshold identifies a state as “linked,” prompting further inquiry into whether the contributions are significant and whether there are cost-effective controls that can be employed to reduce emissions (
The EPA also notes that recent modeling shows that by the 2023 ozone season the receptors identified in Denver are projected to be “clean,”
Based on the 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and the EPA's CSAPR Update Modeling, California's anthropogenic NO
Both NO
CARB identified numerous State mobile source measures and examples of local air district stationary measures that control NO
As noted above, the mobile source sector is the largest source of NO
Pursuant to CAA section 209(b) and (e)(2), CARB has requested, and the EPA has approved, numerous waivers and authorizations over the years, allowing CARB to establish a comprehensive program to control and reduce mobile source emissions within the state. Once the underlying regulations establishing the mobile source emissions standards are waived or authorized by the EPA, CARB submits the regulations to the EPA as revisions to the California SIP. In recent years, the EPA has approved many such mobile source regulations as part of the California SIP, including regulations establishing standards and other requirements relating to emissions from cars, light- and medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks, commercial harbor craft, mobile cargo handling equipment, marine engines and boats, and off-highway recreational vehicles.
Originally, CARB's mobile source control program focused on new engines and vehicles. The emissions reductions from increasingly stringent emissions standards for new engines and vehicles occur over time as new, cleaner vehicles replace old, more polluting models in a foreseeable process referred to as “fleet turnover.” In more recent years, CARB has recognized that emissions reductions from the mobile source sector due to fleet turnover would not occur quickly enough to meet attainment deadlines established under the CAA. As a result, CARB has expanded its program to address the emissions from in-use vehicles (referred to as the “legacy” fleet) by establishing, for example, retrofit or replacement requirements for certain types of heavy-duty trucks and certain fleets of nonroad equipment.
With respect to stationary and area emission sources, the California Transport Plan states that local air districts implement comprehensive rules to address emissions from all sectors.
The California Transport Plan includes a table of 29 measures recently adopted by local air districts and approved into the California SIP by the EPA. These measures are representative of the wide array of NO
In addition to the numerous SIP-approved state and local regulations cited in the California Transport Plan, we also considered California's control measures for NO
Furthermore, considering facility-level emissions and operations, 2016 emissions monitoring data indicate that 242 of the 244 EGUs in California that reported ozone season NO
The largest collection of EGU facilities emitting over 100 tons per year (tpy) of NO
To investigate the potential for further NO
Non-EGU stationary sources emitted 6.7 times more NO
On the strength of CARB and the local air districts' emission control programs, especially for mobile and stationary sources of NO
The California Transport Plan presents a weight of evidence analysis to assess whether the state contributes significantly to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM
Regarding air quality data, CARB reviewed PM
For the 24-hour PM
For the annual PM
The California Transport Plan discusses California emissions from mobile, stationary, and area sources and applicable regulatory programs. CARB highlights the authority granted by Congress in the 1970 CAA for California to adopt mobile source emission control standards in certain situations. Within the California Health and Safety Code, CARB highlights the authority granted to CARB to adopt and implement controls on mobile sources and their fuels, as well as consumer products, and to the state's 35 local air districts to adopt and implement stationary and area source controls.
The California Transport Plan includes a sample list of State and local air district rules that have been approved into the California SIP and a graph of how California state-wide emissions of PM
We have further summarized the California Transport Plan in terms of California's emissions and the State and local regulatory programs in sections II.B and II.D of this proposed rule. These sections describe CARB's statements with respect to NO
Regarding assessment of the causes of the PM
For the 2006 24-hour PM
For the 2012 annual PM
The EPA agrees with CARB's conclusions that California meets the CAA requirements for interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 for the 2006 PM
Building on the identification of potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors and our discussion of California emissions, we present our own weight of evidence analysis for addressing the CAA requirements. This analysis affirms CARB's weight of evidence analysis for the 2006 24-hour PM
Given the role of regulatory monitoring data in the EPA's analysis of interstate transport, the PM
The EPA's 2012 PM
Where available, we rely on this kind of modeling for interstate transport because it accounts for the effect of emission reductions from planned federal, state, and local measures, as well as input from state, local, industry, and community entities, to project where violations, or potential violations, of the NAAQS will occur. By aligning the overlapping design value periods (2009-2013) with the 2011 NEI, we can establish an improved understanding of the relationship between emissions of PM
We note that CARB's adoption of the California Transport Plan on December 17, 2015, preceded the release of the EPA's 2012 PM
For the 2006 PM
We discuss California's control measures before presenting our analysis for transport prongs 1 and 2 for each NAAQS because such discussion provides a common basis for evaluating the California emissions component of CARB's weight of evidence analysis. Also, for three precursors, we incorporate our evaluation of California's emissions and regulatory programs in sections II.B and II.D of this proposed rule for NO
We agree with CARB's general conclusions: That California emissions from stationary sources are subject to stringent limits for PM
For direct PM
The California Transport Plan also includes examples of air district measures for area sources such as those for open burning in South Coast and Imperial County, agricultural burning in Sacramento Metro and Imperial County, fugitive dust in Mojave Desert, and agricultural sources in San Joaquin Valley. We similarly affirm that these measures limit the emission of PM and have been approved into the California SIP.
Per our review of the EPA's emissions trends data, from 2000 to 2016, total statewide PM
We summarize our evaluation of the areas encompassing the 18 nonattainment receptors identified in Table 3 and group them into three geographic bins (
CARB discussed the Pinal County, Arizona receptor, which is known as the Cowtown monitor. This receptor is in the West Central Pinal PM
For the Northern Rocky Mountains, which herein includes nonattainment receptors in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and the Cache County portion of Utah, we evaluated nine nonattainment receptors. The receptors in Idaho and Montana are 360-740 km from California while those in Oregon are 25-255 km from California. All nine are separated from California by various mountain ranges. Locally, the receptors are surrounded by mountains that in some cases rise several thousand feet above the mountain basins, forming a topographical barrier to PM
The highest 24-hour PM
For Utah, we evaluated seven nonattainment receptors that are either in the Salt Lake City or Provo nonattainment area for the 2006 PM
The highest 24-hour PM
We have reviewed the information compiled and presented in the California Transport Plan, including distance of relevant receptors from California; intervening terrain; potential wildfire effects; chemical speciation data; local topography; the effect of local emission sources, particularly residential wood burning and, in certain cases, other sources (
The California Transport Plan did not evaluate PM
CSAPR identified nonattainment receptors for the 2006 PM
The westernmost states that were linked (
By comparison, California is about 2,215 km from the Madison receptor and is separated from Illinois by the Rocky Mountains and the Great Plains. California's projected 2014 base case emissions were 942,254 tpy of NO
As summarized in section II.C.5 of this proposed rule, in response to California State and local control measures, as well as federal measures for sources outside California's regulatory authority, from 2000 to 2016 California's total statewide emissions, excluding wildfires and prescribed fires, decreased by 75 percent for PM
We conclude that California emission sources will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 PM
The Lewis and Clark County maintenance receptor is in the Helena Valley of Montana and is surrounded by mountain ranges, including the Lewis Range to the north, the Absaroka Range to the south, and the Bitterroot Mountains to the west. It is about 800 km from the northeast corner of California, is separated from California by the Sierra Nevada, Blue, and Bitterroot mountain ranges, and its population has increased by 13 percent from 2005 to 2014 while its VMT has decreased by almost 60 percent. The highest 24-hour PM
The Davis and Weber Counties maintenance receptors are in the northern part of the Salt Lake City nonattainment area for the 2006 PM
We have reviewed the information compiled and presented in the California Transport Plan, including distance of these receptors from California; intervening terrain; potential wildfire effects; local topography; the effect of local emission sources on wintertime exceedances; and rural background levels represented by IMPROVE data. We have reviewed California's emissions and emission control programs for PM
The California Transport Plan did not evaluate PM
CSAPR identified maintenance receptors for the 2006 PM
The westernmost states that were linked to this Madison receptor (
Furthermore, as summarized in the section II.C.5 of this proposed rule, in response to California and local control measures, as well as federal measures for sources outside California's regulatory authority, from 2000 to 2016 California's total statewide emissions, excluding wildfires and prescribed fires, decreased by 75 percent for PM
We conclude that California emission sources will not interfere with maintenance of the 2006 PM
We agree with CARB that California does not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2012 annual PM
As discussed above, the EPA's modeling used ambient PM
The EPA's 2012 PM
For Lemhi County, the receptor was not identified in the EPA's modeling but was identified as a nonattainment receptor by CARB. Thus, while we have not included the Lemhi County monitor as either a nonattainment or maintenance receptor for the 2012 PM
In addition, we include our own weight of evidence analysis with respect to Allegheny County because the California Transport Plan did not evaluate PM
For Lemhi and Shoshone Counties, as described in our analysis for the 2006 24-hour PM
CARB states that the IMPROVE monitors at the Craters of the Moon National Park and Sawtooth National Forest in Idaho recorded single-year annual PM
CARB notes that highest 24-hour PM
We have reviewed the information compiled and presented in the California Transport Plan, including distance of these monitors from California; intervening terrain; wildfire effects; local topography; the effect of local emission sources on wintertime exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS and the effect of those exceedances on annual PM
To evaluate the potential for transport of PM
The Allegheny receptor is about 3,100 km from the California border and is separated from California by the Rocky Mountains, the Great Plains, and the Ohio Valley. Even with the generally westerly wind direction from California, this large distance and the intervening mountainous terrain serve as barriers to PM
Consistent with our guidance, we have also considered additional information about emissions and air quality trends. As summarized in section II.C.5 of this proposed rule, in response to California State and local control measures, as well as federal measures for sources outside California's regulatory authority, from 2000 to 2016 California's total statewide emissions, excluding wildfires and prescribed fires, decreased by 75 percent for PM
We conclude that California emission sources will not interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM
Based on our analysis that there are no nonattainment receptors outside of California for the 2012 PM
As noted in section II.A of this proposed rule, the EPA first reviewed the California Transport Plan to assess how the State evaluated the transport of SO
Although SO
The California Transport Plan presents a weight of evidence analysis to examine whether SO
The California Transport Plan identified 31 facilities in California that emit more than 100 tpy of SO
More broadly, CARB contrasts the larger SO
Regarding ambient SO
The California Transport Plan states that the 1-hour SO
CARB studied the trend of SO
CARB asserts that the decline in SO
The EPA proposes to find that California meets the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO
For the first step of our SO
We reviewed the 2014 design value concentrations for Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon that were presented in the California Transport Plan and find them to be accurate. In addition, to assess how air quality has changed over time we also reviewed AQS data for the design value periods ending in years 2011 through 2016. We present the range of SO
These data were consistent with the assertion in the California Transport Plan that, except for Arizona's Hayden and Miami nonattainment areas, the 1-hour SO
To date, the only areas that have been designated nonattainment in the states bordering California are the Hayden and Miami nonattainment areas in Arizona, respectively, based on 2009-2011 monitoring data.
Additional sources that were evaluated under the SO
Based on the SO
In summary, we find that monitored 1-hour SO
The EPA reviewed ambient air quality data in California to see whether there were any monitoring sites, particularly near the California border, with elevated SO
While the 21 special purpose monitors operated by facilities in the Bay Area and South Coast air districts measured 1-hour SO
Regarding the largest sources of SO
The regulatory SO
As further support of our proposal that California SO
We agree with CARB that sources that emit more than 300 tpy are far from the California borders with Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon. CARB identified 10 stationary sources that emitted over 300 tpy of SO
More broadly, there were no sources in 2014 that emitted over 100 tpy of SO
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 1, we reviewed ambient SO
Therefore, based on our analysis of SO
The EPA has reviewed the analysis presented in the California Transport Plan and has considered additional information on California air quality trends and emission trends to evaluate CARB's conclusion that California does not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO
Complementing the 75 percent reduction in California SO
Beyond this important subset of stationary sources, as discussed in our evaluation for significant contribution to maintenance herein, California has reduced SO
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, we reviewed additional information on California air quality trends and emission trends, as well as the evidence considered for interstate transport prong 1. We find that from 2000 to 2015 both ambient SO
We have reviewed the California Transport Plan for the 2008 ozone, 2006 PM
We will accept comments from the public on these proposals for the next 30 days and plan to follow with a final action. The deadline and instructions for submission of comments are provided in the “Date” and “Addresses” sections at the beginning of this proposed rule.
Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed 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
• 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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, 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).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Request for information.
Consistent with Executive Order 13781, “Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch,” and using the authority of the Secretary to reorganize the Department under section 4(a) of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is soliciting public comment on a proposed realignment of the Departmental Administration organization that will improve customer service, better align functions within the organization, and ensure improved strategic decision-making.
Comments and information are requested on or before March 2, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice. All submissions must refer to “Improving Customer Service” to ensure proper delivery.
•
•
Dr. Johanna Briscoe, 202-720-291,
USDA is committed to operating efficiently, effectively, and with integrity, and minimizing the burdens on individuals, businesses, and communities for participation in and compliance with USDA programs. USDA works to support the American agricultural economy to strengthen rural communities; to protect and conserve our natural resources; and to provide a safe, sufficient, and nutritious food supply for the American people. The Department's wide range of programs and responsibilities touches the lives of every American every day.
Executive Order 13781, “Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch”, is intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the executive branch. The principles in the Executive Order provide the basis for taking actions to enhance and strengthen the delivery of USDA programs.
Secretary Perdue intends to take actions to strengthen customer service and improve efficiencies at USDA by taking the following actions:
• Establishing a Customer Experience Office within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration to coordinate agency actions that will improve customer service across the Department;
• Establishing the Office of Property and Fleet Management, and realigning the property, fleet, and hazardous materials management functions of the Office of Procurement and Property Management (OPPM) into the new office;
• Realigning the workers' compensation and safety program out of OPPM into the Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM);
• Transferring the directives program and records management function from the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) to the Office of the Executive Secretariat (OES);
• Realigning the classified network management and the controlled unclassified information functions from OCIO to the Office of Homeland Security (OHS); and
• Renaming OPPM the Office of Contracting and Procurement.
USDA is seeking public comment on these actions and notes that this notice is issued solely for information and program-planning purposes. While responses to this notice do not bind USDA to any further actions, all submissions will be reviewed by the appropriate program office, and made publicly available on
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is giving notice of a meeting of the Census Scientific Advisory Committee (C-SAC). The Committee will address policy, research, and technical issues relating to a full range of Census Bureau programs and activities, including communications, decennial, demographic, economic, field operations, geographic, information technology, and statistics. The C-SAC will meet in a plenary session on March 29-30, 2018. Last minute changes to the schedule are possible, which could prevent giving advance public notice of schedule adjustments. Please visit the Census Advisory Committees website for the most current meeting agenda at:
March 29-30, 2018. On Thursday, March 29, the meeting will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m. and end at approximately 5:00 p.m. On Friday, March 30, the meeting will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m. and end at approximately 3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Census Bureau Auditorium, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746.
Tara Dunlop Jackson, Branch Chief for Advisory Committees, Customer Liaison and Marketing Services Office,
The members of the C-SAC are appointed by the Director, U.S. Census Bureau. The Committee provides scientific and technical expertise, as appropriate, to address Census Bureau program needs and objectives. The Committee has been established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10).
All meetings are open to the public. A brief period will be set aside at the meeting for public comment on March 31. However, individuals with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing to:
If you plan to attend the meeting, please register by Monday, March 26, 2018. You may access the online registration from the following link:
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Committee Liaison Officer as soon as known, and preferably two weeks prior to the meeting.
Due to increased security for access to the meeting, please call 301-763-9906 upon arrival at the Census Bureau on the day of the meeting. A photo ID must be presented in order to receive your visitor's badge. Visitors are not allowed beyond the first floor.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable February 7, 2018.
Robert Galantucci at (202) 482-2923 or Jonathan Hill at (202) 482-3518, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On December 20, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of sodium gluconate, gluconic acid and derivative products from the People's Republic of China.
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if a petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), a petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reason for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.
On January 23, 2018, PMP Fermentation Products, Inc. (the petitioner) submitted a timely request pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) to postpone the preliminary determination. The petitioner stated that the purpose of its request was to provide Commerce with adequate time to solicit information from the respondents and to allow Commerce and interested parties sufficient time to analyze respondents' questionnaire responses.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner has stated the reason for requesting a postponement of the preliminary determination and the record does not present any compelling reasons to deny the request. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, and in light of the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018, Commerce is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination to May 2, 2018.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(l).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Rebecca Janz at (202) 482-2972 (Belarus), Kaitlin Wojnar at (202) 482-3857 (Russia), or Carrie Bethea at (202) 482-1491 (the UAE), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On January 24, 2018, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) published the antidumping duty orders on carbon and alloy steel wire rod from Belarus, the Russian Federation, and the United Arab Emirates.
Commerce is correcting the
This correction to the
The merchandise covered by these orders is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high-nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free machining steel) products (
The products subject to these orders are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3093; 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products entered under subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS also may be included in this scope if they meet the physical description of subject merchandise above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes (pipes and tubes) from India, Thailand, and Turkey; certain circular welded non-alloy steel pipe (non-alloy steel pipe) from Brazil, Mexico, the Republic of Korea (Korea), and Taiwan; and certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes (circular pipes and tubes) from Taiwan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of these AD orders. Additionally, as a result of the determination by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Turkey would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of this CVD order.
Applicable February 7, 2018.
Joshua Poole at (202) 482-1293 or Jacqueline Arrowsmith at (202) 482-5255, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On June 2, 2017, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the fourth sunset review of the AD orders on pipes and tubes from India, Thailand and Turkey; non-alloy steel pipe from Brazil, Mexico, Korea and Taiwan; and circular
Commerce determined that revocation of the AD orders on pipes and tubes from India, Thailand, and Turkey would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail should the orders be revoked.
On January 24, 2018, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, that revocation of the AD orders on pipes and tubes from India, Thailand, and Turkey; the CVD order on pipes and tubes from Turkey; the AD orders on non-alloy steel pipe from Brazil, Mexico, Korea, and Taiwan; and the AD order on circular pipes and tubes from Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the AD Orders and the CVD Order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailable subsidies and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the AD orders on: (1) Pipes and tubes from India, Thailand, and Turkey; (2) non-alloy steel pipe from Brazil, Mexico, Korea, and Taiwan; (3) circular pipes and tubes from Taiwan; and (4) the CVD order on pipes and tubes from Turkey.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD and CVD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of continuation of these orders will be the date of publication in the
These five-year sunset reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act.
The products covered by the order include certain welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes with an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more but not over 16 inches. These products are commonly referred to in the industry as standard pipes and tubes produced to various American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) specifications, most notably A-53, A-120, or A-135.
The antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India, published on May 12, 1986, included standard scope language which used the import classification system as defined by Tariff Schedules of the United States, Annotated (TSUSA). The United States developed a system of tariff classification based on the international harmonized system of customs nomenclature. On January 1, 1989, the U.S. tariff schedules were fully converted from the TSUSA to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS).
Until January 1, 1989, such merchandise was classifiable under item numbers 610.3231, 610.3234, 610.3241, 610.3242, 610.3243, 610.3252, 610.3254, 610.3256, 610.3258, and 610.4925 of the TSUSA. This merchandise is currently classifiable under HTS item numbers 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090. As with the TSUSA numbers, the HTS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written product description remains dispositive.
The products covered by this order are certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The subject merchandise has an outside diameter of 0.375 inches or more, but not exceeding 16 inches. These products, which are commonly referred to in the industry as “standard pipe” or “structural tubing” are hereinafter designated as “pipes and tubes.” The merchandise is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085 and 7306.30.5090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and purposes of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.
The products covered by this order are welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube
The products covered by this order are certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube with an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more, but not over 16 inches, of any wall thickness (pipe and tube) from Turkey. These products are currently provided for under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) as item numbers 7306.30.10, 7306.30.50, and 7306.90.10. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
The products covered by this order are circular welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4 mm (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipes and tubes are intended for the low pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses, and generally meet ASTM A-53 specifications. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing applications, such as for fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing used for framing and support members for reconstruction or load-bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment, and related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is also included in this order. All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical description outlined above are included within the scope of this order, except line pipe, oil country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished conduit. Standard pipe that is dual or triple certified/stenciled that enters the U.S. as line pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines is also not included in this order. Imports of the products covered by this order are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
The products covered by this order are circular welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4 millimeters (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipes and tubes and are intended for the low pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses, and generally meet ASTM A-53 specifications. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing applications, such as for fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing used for framing and support members for reconstruction or load-bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment, and related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is also included in these orders. All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical description outlined above are included within the scope of this order, except line pipe, oil country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished conduit. Standard pipe that is dual or triple certified/stenciled that enters the U.S. as line pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines is also not included in this order. Imports of the products covered by this order are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these proceedings is dispositive.
The merchandise subject to this order is circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4mm (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipes and tubes and are intended for the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air-conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing applications, such as for fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing used for framing and as support members for reconstruction or load-bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment, and other related industries. unfinished conduit pipe is also included in this order. All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within the physical description outlined above are included within the scope of this review except line pipe, oil-country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished conduit. In accordance with the Department's Final Negative Determination of Scope Inquiry on Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Venezuela (61 FR 11608, March 21, 1996), pipe certified to the API 5L line-pipe specification and pipe certified to both the API 5L line-pipe specifications and the less-stringent ASTM A-53 standard-pipe specifications, which falls within the physical parameters as outlined above, and entered as line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines is outside of the scope of the antidumping duty order. Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90.
The products covered by this order are (1) circular welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross section over 114.3 millimeters (4.5 inches), but not over 406.4 millimeters (16 inches) in outside diameter, with a wall thickness of 1.65 millimeters (0.065 inches) or more, regardless of surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end-finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled); and (2) circular welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section less than 406.4 millimeters (16 inches), with a wall thickness of less than 1.65 millimeters (0.065 inches), regardless of surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted) or end-finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipes and tubes and are intended for the low pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkling systems, and other related uses, and generally meet ASTM A-53 specifications. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing applications, such as for fence-tubing and as structural pipe tubing used for framing and support members for construction, or load-bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm-equipment, and related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is also included in this order.
All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical description outlined above are included within the scope of this order, except line pipe, oil country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for redraws, finished
Imports of products covered by this order are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings, 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, 7306.30.50.90. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Imports of the products covered by this order are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings, 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, 7306.30.50.90. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
The merchandise covered by this order is certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan, which are defined as: Welded carbon steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross section, with walls not thinner than 0.065 inch, and 0.375 inch or more but not over 4.5 inches in outside diameter, currently classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, and 7306.30.5055. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to a request from Nucor Corporation (Nucor), the Department of Commerce (Commerce) is initiating an anti-circumvention inquiry to determine whether certain imports of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Mexico with actual diameters that are less than 4.75 millimeters (mm) produced and/or exported to the United States by Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. (Deacero) is circumventing the antidumping duty (AD) order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Mexico.
Applicable February 7, 2018.
Jolanta Lawska or Eric B. Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-8362 and (202) 482-6071, respectively.
On October 27, 2017, Nucor, a domestic interested party, requested that Commerce initiate an anti-circumvention inquiry with regard to carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Mexico with actual diameters that are less than 4.75 mm (hereinafter referred to as narrow-gauge wire rod) that are produced and/or exported to the United States by Deacero.
The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter.
Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high
Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no inclusions greater than 20 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium.
This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no inclusions greater than 20 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).
The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.
All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope.
The products within the scope of this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
On September 24, 2012, Commerce issued an affirmative final circumvention determination in which it determined that, pursuant to section 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(i), wire rod with an actual diameter of 4.75 mm to 5.0 mm produced and/or exported by Deacero constituted a circumventing minor alteration of the
Section 781(c) of the Act provides that Commerce may find circumvention of an AD order when products which are of the class or kind of merchandise subject to an AD order have been “altered in form or appearance in minor respects * * * whether or not included in the same tariff classification.” Section 781(c)(2) of the Act provides an exception that “{p}aragraph 1 shall not apply with respect to altered merchandise if the administering authority determines that it would be unnecessary to consider the altered merchandise within the scope of the AD order.”
While the statute is silent as to what factors to consider in determining whether alterations are properly considered “minor,” the legislative history of this provision indicates that there are certain factors which should be considered before reaching a circumvention determination. In conducting a circumvention inquiry under section 781(c) of the Act, Commerce has generally relied upon “such criteria as the overall physical characteristics of the merchandise, the expectations of the ultimate users, the use of the merchandise, the channels of marketing and the cost of any modification relative to the total value of the imported products.”
After analyzing the information in the Circumvention Allegation and Supplemental Circumvention Allegation, we determine that Nucor has satisfied the criteria listed above to warrant an initiation of a formal anti-circumvention inquiry, pursuant to section 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(i), to determine whether wire rod with actual diameters that are less than 4.75 mm produced and/or exported to the United States by Deacero constitutes merchandise altered in form or appearance in such minor respects that should be included within the scope of the
This minor alternation anti-circumvention inquiry covers wire rod with actual diameters that are less than 4.75 mm produced and/or exported to the United States by Deacero.
Commerce will not order the suspension of liquidation of entries of any additional merchandise at this time. However, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), if Commerce issues a preliminary affirmative determination, we will then instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of estimated duties on the merchandise.
Following consultation with interested parties, Commerce will establish a schedule for questionnaires and comments on the issues related to the
This notice is published in accordance with sections 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(i).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of telephonic meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's Pacific Northwest Crab Industry Advisory Committee (PNCIAC) will meet in February, in Anchorage, AK.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday February 21, 2018, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. PST.
The meeting will be held telephonically. Telephone number is 1-800-920-7487, passcode is 7941749#.
Sarah Marrinan, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809, or Lance Farr, Committee Chair; telephone: (206) 669-7163.
The Committee will discuss harvest strategies for BSS of harvesting dark shell crab, cost recovery of the observer program and Tanner Crab harvest strategy. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Scallop Plan Team will meet on February 21, 2018, in Kodiak, AK.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 21, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Alaska Time.
The meeting will be held at the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Office, 351 Research Ct., Kodiak, AK 99615.
Jim Armstrong, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
The Council's Scallop Plan Team will update the status of the Statewide Scallop Stocks and Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report, including catch specification recommendations for the 2018 fishing year. Additionally, there will be discussion of a scallop age-structured model, scallop fishery economics and the federal license limitation program, the scallop assessment program, survey plans for 2018, potential State regulatory changes for the scallop fishery, and a review and update of scallop research priorities. The agenda is subject to change and will be posted at
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force, National Guard Bureau.
Notice of intent.
The Air Force is issuing this notice to advise the public of its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the beddown of two F-35A Air National Guard squadrons at two of five alternative installations. The Environmental Impact Statement will assess the potential environmental consequences of each alternative in support of the operational beddown.
Each squadron would consist of 18 Primary Aircraft Authorized and 2 Backup Aircraft Inventory. The proposed basing alternatives include: Truax Field in Madison, Wisconsin, Gowen Field in Boise, Idaho, Jacksonville International Airport in Jacksonville, Florida, Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Harrison Township, Michigan, and Dannelly Field in Montgomery, Alabama.
The Air National Guard will hold scoping meetings from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. in the following communities on the following dates in February and March, 2018:
1. Wednesday, February 21, L'Anse Creuse Public Schools Wheeler Community Center, 24076 Frederick V. Pankow Blvd., Clinton Township, Michigan.
2. Tuesday, February 27, Wyndham Garden Boise Airport Hotel Convention Center, 3300 S. Vista Ave., Boise, Idaho.
3. Thursday, March 1, Montgomery Regional Airport First Floor Rotunda and Conference Room, 4445 Selma Highway, Montgomery, Alabama.
4. Thursday, March 8, Crowne Plaza Madison Hotel, 4402 E Washington Ave., Madison, Wisconsin.
5. Tuesday, March 13, DoubleTree Hotel, Jacksonville Airport Aviation Ballroom, 2101 Dixie Clipper Dr., Jacksonville, Florida.
Scoping Comments may also be submitted to: Ms. Christel Johnson, National Guard Bureau, NGB/A4AM, Shepperd Hall, 3501 Fetchet Avenue, Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762-5157. You may also submit comments via the project website at
The F-35A is being acquired in support of the Air National Guard mission. The F-35A would replace the legacy fighter aircraft at the selected installations (A-10, F-15, F-16). The project website provides more information on the Environmental Impact Analysis Process and can also be used to submit scoping comments. Though the Air National Guard will continue to accept comments until publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, scoping comments should be submitted no later than April 6, 2018 to ensure the Air National Guard has sufficient time to consider comments submitted.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
DoD will consider all comments received by April 9, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0533, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Amy Williams, 571-372-6106.
DFARS Clause 252.249-7002, Notification of Anticipated Contract termination or Reduction, is used in all contracts under a major defense program. This clause requires contractors, within 60 days after receipt of notice from the contracting officer of anticipated termination or substantial reduction, to provide notice of the anticipated termination or substantial reduction to first-tier subcontractors with a subcontract of $700,000 or more and requires flowdown to lower-tier subcontractors with a subcontract of $150,000 or more.
Office of the Under Secretary (Personnel and Readiness), DoD.
Notice of housing price inflation adjustment.
The Department of Defense is announcing the 2018 rent threshold under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.
This notice is valid January 1, 2018.
Lt. Col. Reggie D. Yager, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, (703) 571-9301.
The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, as codified at 50 U.S.C. App. 3951, prohibits a landlord from evicting a Service member (or the Service member's family) from a residence during a period of military service except by court order. The law as originally passed by Congress applied to dwellings with monthly rents of $2,400 or less. The law requires the Department of Defense to adjust this amount annually to reflect inflation and to publish the new amount in the
Department of Defense.
Termination of Federal Advisory Committee.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that it is terminating the Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel, effective January 26, 2018.
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.
This committee is being terminated under the provisions of Section 576(c)(2)(C) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, (5 U.S.C. Appendix), 41 CFR 102-3.55, and the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), effective January 26, 2018.
Office of the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Board of Visitors National Defense University will take place. This meeting will be open to the public.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018 from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Thursday, February 22, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Marshall Hall, Building 62, Room 155B, the National Defense University, 300 5th Avenue SW, Fort McNair, Washington, DC 20319-5066.
Richard Cabrey, (202) 685-0821 (Voice), (202) 685-3920 (Facsimile),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public.
Notice is hereby given that the Delaware River Basin Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, February 14, 2018. A business meeting will be held the following month on Wednesday, March 14, 2018. The hearing and meeting are open to the public and will be held at the Washington Crossing Historic Park Visitor Center, 1112 River Road, Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania.
The list of projects scheduled for hearing, including project descriptions, and the text of the proposed resolutions will be posted on the Commission's website,
Written comments on matters scheduled for hearing on February 14 will be accepted through 5:00 p.m. on February 20.
The public is advised to check the Commission's website periodically prior to the hearing date, as items scheduled for hearing may be postponed if additional time is deemed necessary to complete the Commission's review, and items may be added up to ten days prior to the hearing date. In reviewing docket descriptions, the public is also asked to be aware that project details commonly change in the course of the Commission's review, which is ongoing.
After all scheduled business has been completed and as time allows, the Business Meeting will be followed by up to one hour of Open Public Comment, an opportunity to address the Commission on any topic concerning management of the basin's water resources, outside the context of a duly noticed, on-the-record public hearing.
There will be no opportunity for additional public comment for the record at the March 14 Business Meeting on items for which a hearing was completed on February 14 or a previous date. Commission consideration on March 14 of items for which the public hearing is closed may result in approval of the item (by docket or resolution) as proposed, approval with changes, denial, or deferral. When the Commissioners defer an action, they may announce an additional period for written comment on the item, with or without an additional hearing date, or they may take additional time to consider the input they have already received without requesting further public input. Any deferred items will be considered for action at a public meeting of the Commission on a future date.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction of 1995, ED is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to conduct an emergency review of a new information collection.
Approval by the OMB has been requested by 2/7/2018. A regular clearance process is also hereby being initiated. Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 9, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Jessica McKinney, 202-401-1960.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
These Federal education programs were reauthorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The ESSA added a new program to the ESEA, the Flexibility for Equitable Per-pupil Funding under section 1501. This discretionary flexibility allows the U.S. Department of Education (Department) to offer an LEA the opportunity to consolidate funds under the above-listed programs to support the LEA in creating a single school funding system based on weighted per-pupil allocations for low-income and otherwise disadvantaged students, with attendant flexibility in using those funds. For the initial three-year period, the Department may approve this flexibility for up to 50 LEAs.
Given the priority of an orderly transition, the earliest available time to award flexibility related to the use of federal funding was School Year 2018-2019, which mostly takes place during FY 2019. This aligns with States' transition to “full” compliance, as all provisions of the law will be effective by FY 2019, including those that were otherwise delayed under orderly transition authority. This timeframe also aligns with the implementation of the other pilot program provided in ESSA, the Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority (IADA).
Although an approximate timeframe was established, by necessity, the planning for a new and potentially far-reaching program could not begin in earnest until new political leadership had been appointed. This planning began in mid-2017 following the appointment of Secretary DeVos and other political leadership.
The scope of work for the development of the application was significant. The program is entirely new and involves broad authority for the Secretary to waive provisions of the ESEA, although only after a successful applicant meets several dozen precise and technical requirements related to the allocation, use and reporting of funds. Given that the program is new and highly technical, affects the use of federal funds, waives other federal requirements, and involves a potential applicant pool of thousands of school districts, the development of an application required significant legal and policy analysis, which lasted several months.
Lastly, between enactment of ESSA and the present date, there were also several major anticipated and unanticipated events, including a change in Presidential and Secretarial administration, Congressional action that eliminated certain implementing regulations of the law, and significant
The end result remains that a traditional paperwork clearance would have resulted in applicants being unable to use the awarded flexibility until the 2019-2020 school year, which would delay a program that Congress intended to equitably allocate resources to educationally disadvantaged students. Therefore, the Department is seeking emergency clearance.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding New Mexico Wind, LLC`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
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
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-725X (Mandatory Reliability Standards: Voltage and Reactive (VAR) Standards).
Comments on the collection of information are due April 9, 2018.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC18-9-000) by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
• Specify a system-wide voltage schedule (which is either a range or a target value with an associated tolerance band) as part of its plan to operate within SOLs and IROLs, and to provide the voltage schedule to its Reliability Coordinator and adjacent Transmission Operators upon request (Requirement R1);
• Schedule sufficient reactive resources to regulate voltage levels (Requirement R2);
• Operate or direct the operation of devices to regulate transmission voltage and reactive flows (Requirement R3);
• Develop a set of criteria to exempt generators from certain requirements under Reliability Standard VAR-002-3 related to voltage or Reactive Power schedules, automatic voltage regulations, and notification (Requirement R4);
• Specify a voltage or Reactive Power schedule (which is either a range or a target value with an associated tolerance band) for generators at either the high or low voltage side of the generator step-up transformer, provide the schedule to the associated Generator Operator, direct the Generator Operator to comply with that schedule in automatic voltage control mode, provide the Generator Operator the notification requirements for deviating from the schedule, and, if requested, provide the Generator Operator the criteria used to develop the schedule (Requirement R5); and
• Communicate step-up transformer tap changes, the time frame for completion, and the justification for these changes to Generator Owners (Requirement R6).
• Operate each of its generators connected to the interconnected transmission system in automatic voltage control mode or in a different control mode as instructed by the Transmission Operator, unless the Generator Operator (1) is exempted pursuant to the criteria developed under VAR-001-4, Requirement R4, or (2) makes certain notifications to the Transmission Operator specifying the reasons it cannot so operate (Requirement R1);
• Maintain the Transmission Operator's generator voltage or Reactive Power schedule, unless the Generator Operator (1) is exempted pursuant to the criteria developed under VAR-001-4,
• Notify the Transmission Operator of a change in status of its voltage controlling device within 30 minutes, unless the status is restored within that time period (Requirement R3); and
• Notify the Transmission Operator of a change in reactive capability due to factors other than those described in VAR-002-3, Requirement R3 within 30 minutes unless the capability has been restored during that time period (Requirement R4).
• Provide information on its step-up transformers and auxiliary transformers within 30 days of a request from the Transmission Operator or Transmission Planner (Requirement R5); and
• Comply with the Transmission Operator's step-up transformer tap change directives unless compliance would violate safety, an equipment rating, or applicable laws, rules or regulations (Requirement R6).
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Description: Compliance filing Second Compliance Filing in Docket No. CP15-517-000 to be effective 2/1/2018.
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 date(s). 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:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, [FERC-716, Good Faith Requests for Transmission Service and Good Faith Responses by Transmitting Utilities Under Sections 211(a) and 213(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA)].
Comments on the collection of information are due April 9, 2018.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC18-8-000) by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
The Commission's regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 18 CFR 2.20, provide standards by which the Commission determines if and when a valid good faith request for transmission has been made under section 211 of the FPA. By developing the standards, the Commission sought to encourage an open exchange of data with a reasonable degree of specificity and completeness between the party requesting transmission services and the transmitting utility. As a result, 18 CFR 2.20 identifies 12 components of a good faith estimate and 5 components of a reply to a good faith request.
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:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collection FERC-725HH (RF Reliability Standards) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by March 9, 2018.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0256, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. RD17-8-000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
RF promotes bulk electric system reliability in the Eastern Interconnection. RF is the Regional Entity responsible for compliance monitoring and enforcement in the RF region. In addition, RF provides an environment for the development of Reliability Standards and the coordination of the operating and planning activities of its members as set forth in the RF bylaws.
There is one regional Reliability Standard in the RF region. The regional Reliability Standard requires planning coordinators within the RF geographical footprint to analyze, assess and document resource adequacy for load in the RF footprint annually, to utilize a “one day in ten years” loss of load criterion, and to document and post load and resource capability in each area or transmission-constrained sub-area identified.
• BAL-502-RFC-02 (Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation)
The Commission's request to OMB reflects the following:
• Implementing the regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03 and the retirement of regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02
On September 7, 2017, NERC and RF filed a joint petition in Docket No. RD17-8-000
• Manager (Occupation Code 11-0000): $81.52/hour
• Engineer (Occupation Code 17-2071): $68.12/hour
• File Clerk (Occupation Code 43-4071): $32.74/hour
The hourly cost for the reporting requirements ($60.79) is an average of the cost of a manager, an engineer, and a file clerk.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of document availability and request for comments.
The Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016 is available for public review. EPA requests recommendations for improving the overall quality of the inventory report to be finalized in April 2018, as well as subsequent inventory reports.
To ensure your comments are considered for the final version of the document, please submit your comments by March 9, 2018. However, comments received after that date will still be welcomed and considered for the next edition of this report.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0729, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Ms. Mausami Desai, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, (202) 343-9381,
Annual U.S. emissions for the period of time from 1990 through 2016 are summarized and presented by source category and sector. The inventory contains estimates of carbon dioxide (CO
The Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016 is the latest in a series of annual, policy-neutral U.S. submissions to the Secretariat of the UNFCCC. EPA requests recommendations for improving the overall quality of the inventory report to be finalized in April 2018, as well as subsequent inventory reports.
The draft report is available at:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 9, 2018.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
47 CFR 73.88 states that the licensee of each broadcast station is required to satisfy all reasonable complaints of blanketing interference within the 1V/m contour.
47 CFR 73.318(b) states that after January 1, 1985, permittees or licensees who either (1) commence program tests, (2) replace the antennas, or (3) request facilities modifications and are issued a new construction permit must satisfy all complaints of blanketing interference which are received by the station during a one year period.
47 CFR 73.318(c) states that a permittee collocating with one or more existing stations and beginning program tests on or after January 1, 1985, must assume full financial responsibility for remedying new complaints of blanketing interference for a period of one year.
Under 47 CFR 73.88, and 73.685(d), the license is financially responsible for resolving complaints of interference within one year of program test authority when certain conditions are met. After the first year, a license is only required to provide technical assistance to determine the cause of interference.
(a) Provides a consistent format for reporting the children's educational television programming aired by licensees to meet their obligation under the Children's Television Act of 1990 (CTA), and
(b) facilitates efforts by the public and the FCC to monitor compliance with the CTA. Commercial full-power and Class A television stations are required to complete FCC Form 2100, Schedule H each calendar quarter and file the form
On July 19, 2005, the Commission released Telecommunication Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67 and CG Docket No. 03-123, Order, 70 FR 54294, September 14, 2005, clarifying that two-line captioned telephone VCO service, like one-line captioned telephone VCO service, is a type of TRS eligible for compensation from the Fund.
On January 11, 2007, the Commission released Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Declaratory Ruling, 72 FR 6960, February 14, 2007, granting a request for clarification that internet Protocol (IP) captioned telephone relay service (IP CTS) is a type of TRS eligible for compensation from the Fund.
On August 26, 2013, the Commission issued Misuse of internet Protocol (IP) Captioned Telephone Service; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket Nos. 13-24 and 03-123, Report and Order, 78 FR 53684, August 30, 2013, to regulate practices relating to the marketing of IP CTS, impose certain requirements for the provision of this service, and mandate registration and certification of IP CTS users. This notice and request for comments pertains to the extension of the currently approved information collection requirements for one-line and two-line captioned telephone service (CTS) and internet Protocol captioned telephone service (IP CTS) rules and update the estimates of existing burdens that were included in the January 2015 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
FCC announces the top national nonbroadcast network rankings from the 2016-2017 ratings year, and gives networks the opportunity to seek exemption from the July 1, 2018 update to the Commission's video description requirements.
Published January 12, 2018. Exemption requests are due March 9, 2018.
Filings should be submitted electronically in MB Docket No. 11-43 by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) at
For further information, contact Lyle Elder (202-418-2120;
Video description makes video programming accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired through “[t]he insertion of audio narrated descriptions of a television program's key visual elements into natural pauses between the program's dialogue.” As of July 1, 2018, the Commission's video description rules will require multichannel video programming distributor (“MVPD”) systems that serve 50,000 or more subscribers to provide 87.5 hours of video description per
In accordance with the Commission's rules, the list of top five nonbroadcast networks will update at three year intervals to account for changes in ratings, and the second triennial update will occur on July 1, 2018, based on the 2016 to 2017 ratings year. According to data provided by the Nielsen Company, the top ten nonbroadcast networks for the 2016 to 2017 ratings year are: Fox News, ESPN, USA, MSNBC, HGTV, TBS, Discovery, History, Hallmark, and TNT.
If a program network believes it should be excluded from the list of top five networks covered by the video description requirements because it does not air at least 50 hours of prime time programming that is not live or near-live or is otherwise exempt, it must seek an exemption no later than 30 days after publication of this Public Notice in the
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than February 27, 2018.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 5, 2018.
1.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by April 9, 2018.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
The information required under this collection is requested by Medicare contractors to determine proper payment, or if there is a suspicion of fraud. Medicare contractors request the information from providers/suppliers submitting claims for payment when data analysis indicates aberrant billing patterns or other information which may present a vulnerability to the Medicare program. Extensive instructions to CMS contractors on medical review processes and procedures are contained in CMS' Program Integrity Manual, 100-08 which can be found at
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by March 9, 2018.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
For the Prior Authorization of Power Mobility Devices (PMDs) Demonstration, we are piloting prior authorization for PMDs. Prior authorization will allow the applicable documentation that supports a claim to be submitted before the item is delivered. For prior authorization, relevant documentation for review is submitted before the item is delivered or the service is rendered. CMS will conduct this demonstration in California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Louisiana, Missouri, Maryland, New Jersey, Indiana, Kentucky, Georgia, Tennessee, Washington, and Arizona based on beneficiary address as reported to the Social Security Administration and recorded in the Common Working File (CWF). For the demonstration, a prior authorization request can be completed by the (ordering) physician or treating practitioner and submitted to the appropriate Durable Medical Equipment Medicare Administrative Contractor (DME MAC) for an initial decision. The supplier may also submit the request on behalf of the physician or treating practitioner. The physician, treating practitioner or supplier who submits the request on behalf of the physician or treating practitioner, is referred to as the “submitter.” Under this demonstration, the submitter will submit to the DME MAC a request for prior authorization and all relevant documentation to support Medicare coverage of the PMD item.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by April 9, 2018.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep
1.
2.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by March 9, 2018.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports the previous captioned Agency guidance. The guidance provides a single resource for information on FDA's policies and procedures related to the following expedited programs for serious conditions: (1) Fast track designation, (2) breakthrough therapy designation, (3) accelerated approval, and (4) priority review designation. The guidance describes threshold criteria generally applicable to expedited programs, including what is meant by serious condition, unmet medical need, and available therapy. The guidance addresses the applicability of expedited programs to rare diseases, clarification on available therapy, and additional detail on possible flexibility in manufacturing and product quality. The guidance also clarifies the qualifying criteria for breakthrough therapy designation and provides examples of surrogate endpoints and intermediate clinical endpoints used to support accelerated approval.
In the
The information collection elements regarding priority review designation and breakthrough therapy designation requests are reflected in rows 1 and 2 of table 1 and are currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0765. Meanwhile, fast track designation requests and premeeting packages are currently approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0389. We are therefore revising OMB control number 0910-0389 to include all four collection elements. Information collection burden for accelerated approval requests is currently approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0001 (drugs) and 0910-0338 (biologics). The estimates provided are based on our experience with the respective collection elements over the past 3 years.
A sponsor or applicant who seeks fast track designation is required to submit a request to the Agency showing that the drug product: (1) Is intended for a serious or life-threatening condition, and (2) has the potential to address an unmet medical need. The Agency expects that most information to support a designation request will have been gathered under existing requirements for preparing an investigational new drug (IND), new drug application (NDA), or biologics license application (BLA). If such information has already been submitted to the Agency, the information may be summarized in the fast track designation request. A designation request should include, where applicable, additional information not specified elsewhere by statute or regulation. For example, additional information may be needed to show that a product has the potential to address an unmet medical need where an approved therapy exists for the serious or life-threatening condition to be treated. Such information may include clinical data, published reports, summaries of data and reports, and a list of references. The amount of information and discussion in a designation request need not be voluminous, but it should be sufficient to permit a reviewer to assess whether the criteria for fast track designation have been met.
After the Agency makes a fast track designation, a sponsor or applicant may submit a premeeting package that may include additional information supporting a request to participate in certain fast track programs. The premeeting package serves as background information for the meeting and should support the intended objectives of the meeting. As with the request for fast track designation, the Agency expects that most sponsors or applicants will have gathered such information to meet existing requirements for preparing an IND, NDA, or BLA. These may include descriptions of clinical safety and efficacy trials not conducted under an IND (
The Agency estimates the total annual number of respondents submitting requests for fast track designation is approximately 140, and the number of requests received is approximately 187 annually. FDA estimates that the number of hours needed to prepare a request for fast track designation is approximately 60 hours per request (row 3 in table 1).
Of the requests for fast track designation made per year, the Agency granted approximately 132 requests from 107 respondents, and for each of these granted requests, a premeeting package was submitted to the Agency. FDA estimates that the preparation hours are approximately 100 hours per premeeting package (row 4 in table 1). The total burden hours for fast track designation and fast track meetings has increased due to increased requests; however, the hours per request have remained the same.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for SEDASYS SYSTEM and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that medical device.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 9, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the medical device SEDASYS SYSTEM. SEDASYS SYSTEM is indicated for intravenous administration of 1 percent propofol injectable emulsion for the initiation and maintenance of minimal to moderate sedation, as defined by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Continuum of Depth of Sedation in ASA physical status I and II patients. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for SEDASYS SYSTEM (U.S. Patent No. 6,807,965) from Scott Laboratories, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated November 3, 2015, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of SEDASYS SYSTEM represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for SEDASYS SYSTEM is 2,816 days. Of this time, 950 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 1,866 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 2,283 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for GENVOYA and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 9, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product GENVOYA (cobicistat, emtricitabine, elvitegravir, and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate). GENVOYA is indicated as a complete regimen for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults and pediatric patients 12 years of age and older who have no antiretroviral treatment history or to replace the current antiretroviral regimen in those who are virologically-suppressed (HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL) on a stable antiretroviral regimen for at least 6 months with no history of treatment failure and no known substitutions associated with resistance to the individual components of GENVOYA. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for GENVOYA (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,390,791 and 7,803,788) from Gilead Sciences, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated August 26, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of GENVOYA represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for GENVOYA is 5,031 days. Of this time, 4,665 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 366 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,116 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by April 9, 2018.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 9, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA'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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
From 1998 to 2008, FDA's National Retail Food Team conducted a study to measure trends in the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors, preparation practices, and employee behaviors most commonly reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as contributing factors to foodborne illness outbreaks at the retail level. Specifically, data was collected by FDA Specialists in retail and foodservice establishments at 5-year intervals (1998, 2003, and 2008) to observe and document trends in the occurrence of the following foodborne illness risk factors:
• Food from Unsafe Sources,
• Poor Personal Hygiene,
• Inadequate Cooking,
• Improper Holding/Time and Temperature, and
• Contaminated Equipment/Cross-Contamination.
FDA developed reports summarizing the findings for each of the three data collection periods (1998, 2003, and 2008) (Refs. 1 to 3). Data from all three data collection periods were analyzed to detect trends in improvement or regression over time and to determine whether progress had been made toward the goal of reducing the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors in selected retail and foodservice facility types (Ref. 4).
Using this 10-year survey as a foundation, in 2013-2014, FDA initiated a new study in full service and fast food restaurants. This study will span 10 years with a data collection currently being conducted in 2017-2018 and another data collection planned for 2021-2022 (the subject of this information collection request extension).
The purpose of the study is to:
• Assist FDA with developing retail food safety initiatives and policies focused on the control of foodborne illness risk factors;
• Identify retail food safety work plan priorities and allocate resources to enhance retail food safety nationwide;
• Track changes in the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors in retail and foodservice establishments over time; and
• Inform recommendations to the retail and foodservice industry and State, local, tribal, and territorial regulatory professionals on reducing the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors.
The statutory basis for FDA conducting this study is derived from the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 243, section 311(a)). Responsibility for carrying out the provisions of the PHS Act relative to food protection was transferred to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs in 1968 (21 CFR 5.10(a)(2) and (4)). Additionally, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301
The objectives of the study are to:
• Identify the least and most often occurring foodborne illness risk factors and food safety behaviors/practices in retail and foodservice facility types during each data collection period;
• Track improvement and/or regression trends in the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors during the 10-year study period;
• Examine potential correlations between operational characteristics of food establishments and the control of foodborne illness risk factors;
• Examine potential correlations between elements within regulatory retail food protection programs and the control of foodborne illness risk factors; and
• Determine the extent to which food safety management systems and the presence of a certified food protection manager impact the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors.
The methodology to be used for this information collection is described as follows. To obtain a sufficient number of observations to conduct statistically significant analysis, FDA will conduct approximately 400 data collections in each facility type. This sample size has been calculated to provide for sufficient observations to be 95 percent confident that the compliance percentage is within 5 percent of the true compliance percentage.
A geographical information system database containing a listing of businesses throughout the United States provides the establishment inventory for the data collections. FDA samples establishments from the inventory based on the descriptions in table 1. FDA does not intend to sample operations that handle only prepackaged food items or conduct low-risk food preparation activities. The “FDA Food Code” contains a grouping of establishments by risk, based on the type of food preparation that is normally conducted within the operation (Ref. 5). The intent is to sample establishments that fall under risk categories 2 through 4.
FDA has approximately 25 Retail Food Specialists (Specialists) who serve as the data collectors for the 10-year study. The Specialists are geographically dispersed throughout the
Sampling zones have been established that are equal to the 150-mile radius around a Specialist's home location. The sample is selected randomly from among all eligible establishments located within these sampling zones. The Specialists are generally located in major metropolitan areas (
1. It provides a cross section of urban and rural areas from which to sample the eligible establishments.
2. It represents a mix of small, medium, and large regulatory entities having jurisdiction over the eligible establishments.
3. It reduces overnight travel and therefore reduces travel costs incurred by the Agency to collect data.
The sample for each data collection period is evenly distributed among Specialists. Given that participation in the study by industry is voluntary and the status of any given randomly selected establishment is subject to change, substitute establishments have been selected for each Specialist for cases where the restaurant facility is misclassified, closed, or otherwise unavailable, unable, or unwilling to participate.
Prior to conducting the data collection, Specialists contact the State or local jurisdiction that has regulatory responsibility for conducting retail food inspections for the selected establishment. The Specialist verifies with the jurisdiction that the facility has been properly classified for the purposes of the study and is still in operation. The Specialist ascertains whether the selected facility is under legal notice from the State or local regulatory authority. If the selected facility is under legal notice, the Specialist will not conduct a data collection, and a substitute establishment will be used. An invitation is extended to the State or local regulatory authority to accompany the Specialist on the data collection visit.
A standard form is used by the Specialists during each data collection. The form is divided into three sections: Section 1—“Establishment Information”; Section 2—“Regulatory Authority Information”; and Section 3—“Foodborne Illness Risk Factor and Food Safety Management System Assessment.” The information in Section 1—“Establishment Information” of the form is obtained during an interview with the establishment owner or person in charge by the Specialist and includes a standard set of questions.
The information in Section 2—“Regulatory Authority Information” is obtained during an interview with the program director of the State or local jurisdiction that has regulatory responsibility for conducting inspections for the selected establishment. Section 3 includes three parts: Part A for tabulating the Specialists' observations of the food employees' behaviors and practices in limiting contamination, proliferation, and survival of food safety hazards; Part B for assessing the food safety management system being implemented by the facility; and Part C for assessing the frequency and extent of food employee hand washing. The information in Part A is collected from the Specialists' direct observations of food employee behaviors and practices. Infrequent, nonstandard questions may be asked by the Specialists if clarification is needed on the food safety procedure or practice being observed. The information in Part B is collected by making direct observations and asking follow up questions of facility management to obtain information on the extent to which the food establishment has developed and implemented food safety management systems. The information in Part C is collected by making direct observations of food employee hand washing. No questions are asked in the completion of Section 3, Part C of the form.
FDA collects the following information associated with the establishment's identity: Establishment name, street address, city, state, zip code, county, industry segment, and facility type. The establishment identifying information is collected to ensure the data collections are not duplicative. Other information related to the nature of the operation, such as seating capacity and number of employees per shift, is also collected. Data will be consolidated and reported in a manner that does not reveal the identity of any establishment included in the study.
FDA has collaborated with the Food Protection and Defense Institute to develop a web-based platform in FoodSHIELD to collect, store, and analyze data for the Retail Risk Factor Study. This platform is accessible to State, local, territorial, and tribal regulatory jurisdictions to collect data relevant to their own risk factor studies. For the 2015-2016 data collection, FDA piloted the use of hand-held technology for capturing the data onsite during the data collection visits. The tablets that were made available for the data collections were part of a broader Agency initiative focused on internal uses of hand-held technology. The tablets provided for the data collection presented several technical and logistical challenges and increased the time burden associated with the data collection as compared to the manual entry of data collections. FDA continues to assess the feasibility for fully incorporating use of hand-held technology in subsequent data collections during the 10-year study period.
When a data collector is assigned a specific establishment, he or she conducts the data collection and enters the information into the web-based data platform. The interface will support the manual entering of data, as well as the ability to directly enter information in the database via a web browser.
The burden for the 2021-2022 data collection is as follows. For each data collection, the respondents will include: (1) The person in charge of the selected facility (whether it be a fast food or full service restaurant) and (2) the program director (or designated individual) of the respective regulatory authority. To provide the sufficient number of observations needed to conduct a statistically significant analysis of the data, FDA has determined that 400 data collections will be required in each of the two restaurant facility types. Therefore, the total number of responses will be 1,600 (400 data collections × 2 facility types × 2 respondents per data collection).
The burden associated with the completion of Sections 1 and 3 of the form is specific to the persons in charge of the selected facilities. It includes the time it will take the person in charge to accompany the data collector during the site visit and answer the data collector's questions. The burden related to the completion of Section 2 of the form is specific to the program directors (or designated individuals) of the respective regulatory authorities. It includes the time it will take to answer the data collectors' questions and is the same regardless of the facility type.
To calculate the estimate of the hours per response, FDA will use the average
Based on the number of entry refusals from the 2013-2014 baseline data collection, we estimate a refusal rate of 2 percent for the data collections within restaurant facility types. The estimate of the time per non-respondent is 5 minutes (0.08 hours) for the person in charge to listen to the purpose of the visit and provide a verbal refusal of entry.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The burden for this information collection has not changed since the last OMB approval.
The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see
1. “Report of the FDA Retail Food Program Database of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors” (2000). Available at:
2. “FDA Report on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Selected Institutional Foodservice, Restaurant, and Retail Food Store Facility Types (2004).” Available at:
3. “FDA Report on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Selected Institutional Foodservice, Restaurant, and Retail Food Store Facility Types (2009).” Available at:
4. FDA National Retail Food Team. “FDA Trend Analysis Report on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Selected Institutional Foodservice, Restaurant, and Retail Food Store Facility Types (1998-2008).” Available at:
5. “FDA Food Code.” Available at:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for FARXIGA and is publishing this
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 9, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product FARXIGA (dapagliflozin). FARXIGA is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise to
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for FARXIGA is 3,673 days. Of this time, 2,565 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 1,108 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,825 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by April 9, 2018.
You may submit comments as follows: Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 9, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA'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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
This information collection supports Agency regulations. Specifically, section 310(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 337(b)) authorizes a State to enforce certain sections of the FD&C Act in their own name and within their own jurisdiction. However, before doing so, a State must provide notice to FDA according to 21 CFR 100.2. The information required in a letter of notification under § 100.2(d) enables us to identify the food against which a State intends to take action and to advise that State whether Federal enforcement action against the food has been taken or is in process. With certain narrow exceptions, Federal enforcement action precludes State action under the FD&C Act.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The estimated burden for this information collection has not changed since the last OMB approval.
The estimated reporting burden for § 100.2(d) is minimal because enforcement notifications are seldom used by States. During the last 3 years, we have not received any new enforcement notifications; therefore, we estimate that one or fewer notifications will be submitted annually. Although we have not received any new enforcement notifications in the last 3 years, we believe these information collection provisions should be extended to provide for the potential future need of a State government to submit enforcement notifications informing us when it intends to take enforcement action under the FD&C Act against a particular food located in the State.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for BLINCYTO and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human biological product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 9, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human biological products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the biological product becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human biological product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the biological
FDA has approved for marketing the human biologic product BLINCYTO (blinatumomab). BLINCYTO is indicated for the treatment of Philadelphia chromosome-negative relapsed or refractory B-cell precuror acute lymphoblastic leukemia. This indication is approved under accelerated approval. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification of clinical benefit in subsequent trials. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for BLINCYTO (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,112,324 and 8,007,796) from Amgen Research (Munich) GMBH, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated October 30, 2015, FDA advised the USPTO that this human biological product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of BLINCYTO represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for BLINCYTO is 2,850 days. Of this time, 2,774 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 76 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,462 or 432 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by April 9, 2018.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 9, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA'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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
From 1998 to 2008, FDA's National Retail Food Team conducted a study to measure trends in the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors, preparation practices, and employee behaviors most commonly reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as contributing factors to foodborne illness outbreaks at the retail level. Specifically, data was collected by FDA specialists in retail and foodservice establishments at 5-year intervals (1998, 2003, and 2008) to observe and document trends in the occurrence of the following foodborne illness risk factors:
• Food from Unsafe Sources,
• Poor Personal Hygiene,
• Inadequate Cooking,
• Improper Holding/Time and Temperature, and
• Contaminated Equipment/Cross-Contamination.
FDA developed reports summarizing the findings for each of the three data collection periods (1998, 2003, and 2008) (Refs. 1 to 3). Data from all three data collection periods were analyzed to detect trends in improvement or regression over time and to determine whether progress had been made toward the goal of reducing the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors in selected retail and foodservice facility types (Ref. 4).
Using this 10-year survey as a foundation, in 2013-2014, FDA initiated a new study in full service and fast food restaurants. This study will span 10 years with additional data collections planned for 2017-2018 and 2021-2022.
FDA recently completed the baseline data collection in select health care, school, and retail food store facility types in 2015-2016. This proposed study will also span 10 years with additional data collections planned for 2019-2020 (the subject of this information collection request reinstatement) and 2023-2024 (which
The purpose of the study is to:
• Assist FDA with developing retail food safety initiatives and policies focused on the control of foodborne illness risk factors;
• Identify retail food safety work plan priorities and allocate resources to enhance retail food safety nationwide;
• Track changes in the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors in retail and foodservice establishments over time; and
• Inform recommendations to the retail and foodservice industry and State, local, tribal, and territorial regulatory professionals on reducing the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors.
The statutory basis for FDA conducting this study is derived from the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 243, section 311(a)). Responsibility for carrying out the provisions of the PHS Act relative to food protection was transferred to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs in 1968 (21 CFR 5.10(a)(2) and (4)). Additionally, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301
The objectives of the study are to:
• Identify the least and most often occurring foodborne illness risk factors and food safety behaviors/practices in health care, school, restaurant, and retail food store facility types during each data collection period;
• Track improvement and/or regression trends in the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors during the 10-year study period;
• Examine potential correlations between operational characteristics of food establishments and the control of foodborne illness risk factors;
• Examine potential correlations between elements within regulatory retail food protection programs and the control of foodborne illness risk factors; and
• Determine the extent to which food safety management systems and the presence of a certified food protection manager impact the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors.
The methodology to be used for this information collection is described as follows. To obtain a sufficient number of observations to conduct statistically significant analysis, FDA will conduct approximately 400 data collections in each facility type. This sample size has been calculated to provide for sufficient observations to be 95 percent confident that the compliance percentage is within 5 percent of the true compliance percentage.
A geographical information system database containing a listing of businesses throughout the United States provides the establishment inventory for the data collections. FDA samples establishments from the inventory based on the descriptions in table 1. FDA does not intend to sample operations that handle only prepackaged food items or conduct low-risk food preparation activities. The “FDA Food Code” contains a grouping of establishments by risk, based on the type of food preparation that is normally conducted within the operation (Ref. 5). The intent is to sample establishments that fall under risk categories 2 through 4.
FDA has approximately 25 Regional Retail Food Specialists (Specialists) who serve as the data collectors for the 10-year study. The Specialists are geographically dispersed throughout the United States and possess technical expertise in retail food safety and a solid understanding of the operations within each of the facility types to be surveyed. The Specialists are also standardized by FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition personnel in the application and interpretation of the FDA Food Code (Ref. 5).
Sampling zones have been established that are equal to the 150-mile radius
1. It provides a cross-section of urban and rural areas from which to sample the eligible establishments.
2. It represents a mix of small, medium, and large regulatory entities having jurisdiction over the eligible establishments.
3. It reduces overnight travel and therefore reduces travel costs incurred by the Agency to collect data.
The sample for each data collection period is evenly distributed among Specialists. Given that participation in the study by industry is voluntary and the status of any given randomly selected establishment is subject to change, substitute establishments have been selected for each Specialist for cases where the institutional foodservice, school, or retail food store facility is misclassified, closed, or otherwise unavailable, unable, or unwilling to participate.
Prior to conducting the data collection, Specialists contact the State or local jurisdiction that has regulatory responsibility for conducting retail food inspections for the selected establishment. The Specialist verifies with the jurisdiction that the facility has been properly classified for the purposes of the study and is still in operation. The Specialist ascertains whether the selected facility is under legal notice from the State or local regulatory authority. If the selected facility is under legal notice, the Specialist will not conduct a data collection, and a substitute establishment will be used. An invitation is extended to the State or local regulatory authority to accompany the Specialist on the data collection visit.
A standard form is used by the Specialists during each data collection. The form is divided into three sections: Section 1—“Establishment Information”; Section 2—“Regulatory Authority Information”; and Section 3—“Foodborne Illness Risk Factor and Food Safety Management System Assessment”. The information in Section 1—“Establishment Information” of the form is obtained during an interview with the establishment owner or person in charge by the Specialist and includes a standard set of questions.
The information in Section 2—“Regulatory Authority Information” is obtained during an interview with the program director of the State or local jurisdiction that has regulatory responsibility for conducting inspections for the selected establishment. Section 3 includes three parts: Part A for tabulating the Specialists' observations of the food employees' behaviors and practices in limiting contamination, proliferation, and survival of food safety hazards; Part B for assessing the food safety management system being implemented by the facility; and Part C for assessing the frequency and extent of food employee hand washing. The information in Part A is collected from the Specialists' direct observations of food employee behaviors and practices. Infrequent, nonstandard questions may be asked by the Specialists if clarification is needed on the food safety procedure or practice being observed. The information in Part B is collected by making direct observations and asking follow up questions of facility management to obtain information on the extent to which the food establishment has developed and implemented food safety management systems. The information in Part C is collected by making direct observations of food employee hand washing. No questions are asked in the completion of Section 3, Part C of the form.
FDA collects the following information associated with the establishment's identity: Establishment name, street address, city, state, ZIP code, county, industry segment, and facility type. The establishment identifying information is collected to ensure the data collections are not duplicative. Other information related to the nature of the operation, such as seating capacity and number of employees per shift, is also collected. Data will be consolidated and reported in a manner that does not reveal the identity of any establishment included in the study.
FDA has collaborated with the Food Protection and Defense Institute to develop a web-based platform in FoodSHIELD to collect, store, and analyze data for the Retail Risk Factor Study. This platform is accessible to State, local, territorial, and tribal regulatory jurisdictions to collect data relevant to their own risk factor studies. For the 2015-2016 data collection, FDA piloted the use of hand-held technology for capturing the data onsite during the data collection visits. The tablets that were made available for the data collections were part of a broader Agency initiative focused on internal uses of hand-held technology. The tablets provided for the data collection presented several technical and logistical challenges and increased the time burden associated with the data collection as compared to the manual entry of data collections. FDA continues to assess the feasibility for fully incorporating use of hand-held technology in subsequent data collections during the 10-year study period.
When a data collector is assigned a specific establishment, he or she conducts the data collection and enters the information into the web-based data platform. The interface will support the manual entering of data, as well as the ability to directly enter information in the database via a web browser.
The burden for the 2019-2020 data collection is as follows. For each data collection, the respondents will include: (1) The person in charge of the selected facility (whether it be a health care facility, school, or supermarket/grocery store) and (2) the program director (or designated individual) of the respective regulatory authority. To provide the sufficient number of observations needed to conduct a statistically significant analysis of the data, FDA has determined that 400 data collections will be required in each of the three facility types. Therefore, the total number of responses will be 2,400 (400 data collections × 3 facility types × 2 respondents per data collection).
The burden associated with the completion of Sections 1 and 3 of the form is specific to the persons in charge of the selected facilities. It includes the time it will take the person in charge to accompany the data collector during the site visit and answer the data collector's questions. The burden related to the completion of Section 2 of the form is specific to the program directors (or designated individuals) of the respective regulatory authorities. It includes the time it will take to answer the data collectors' questions and is the same regardless of the facility type.
To calculate the estimate of the hours per response, FDA uses the average data collection duration for similar facility types during the FDA's 2008 Risk Factor Study (Ref. 3) plus an additional 30 minutes (0.5 hours) for the information related to Section 3, Part B of the form. FDA estimates that it will take the persons in charge of health care facility types, schools, and retail food stores 150 minutes (2.5 hours), 120 minutes (2 hours), and 180 minutes (3 hours), respectively, to accompany the data
Based on the number of entry refusals from the 2015-2016 baseline data collection, we estimate a refusal rate of 2 percent for the data collections within health care, school, and retail food store facility types. The estimate of the time per non-respondent is 5 minutes (0.08 hours) for the person in charge to listen to the purpose of the visit and provide a verbal refusal of entry.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The burden for this information collection has not changed since the last OMB approval.
The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and AIDS Initial Review Group, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research Committee.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following 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 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 contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved information collection for which approval has expired. 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 March 9, 2018.
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, email address
Federal lenders and federally regulated or sponsored lending institutions may not make, increase, extend, or renew any loan secured by improved real property located in a special flood hazard area (SFHA) unless the building and any personal property securing the loan is covered by flood insurance for the life of the loan.
In general, individual mortgagees subject to the requirements of the FDPA obtain and maintain flood insurance for their individual properties. When individual mortgagees to not obtain required flood insurance, the NFIP's Mortgage Portfolio Protection program (MPPP) allows covered lenders to ensure compliance with the requirements of FDPA by selling making available special coverage for the lender's entire mortgage portfolio.
This proposed information collection previously published in the
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
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 March 9, 2018.
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, email address
This proposed information collection previously published in the
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Committee management; notice of open Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Advisory Council (NAC) will meet in person and remotely via teleconference on Friday, February 23, 2018, in Washington, DC. The meeting will be open to the public.
The NAC will meet Friday, February 23, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). Please note that the meeting may close early if the NAC has completed its business.
The meeting will be held at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C St SW, Washington, DC 20472 in Conference Room A on the ground floor. It is recommended that attendees register with FEMA prior to the meeting by providing their name, telephone number, email address, title, and organization to the person listed in
For information on facilities or services for people with disabilities and others with access and functional needs, or to request assistance at the meeting, contact the person listed in
To facilitate public participation, members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered by the NAC. The “Agenda” section below outlines these issues. The full agenda and any related documents for this meeting will be posted by Friday, February 16, 2018, on the NAC website at
•
•
•
•
A public comment period will be held on Friday, February 23, 2018, from 1:20 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. ET. All speakers must limit their comments to 5 minutes. Comments should be addressed to the NAC. Any comments not related to the agenda topics will not be considered by the NAC. To register to make remarks during the public comment period, contact the individual listed in
Deana Platt, Designated Federal Officer, Office of the National Advisory Council, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472-3184, telephone (202) 646-2700, fax (540) 504-2331, and email
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.
The NAC advises the FEMA Administrator on all aspects of emergency management. The NAC incorporates state, local, and tribal government, and private sector input in the development and revision of FEMA plans and strategies. The NAC includes a cross-section of officials, emergency managers, and emergency response providers from state, local, and tribal governments, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations.
The full agenda and any related documents for this meeting will be posted by Friday, February 16, 2018, on the NAC website at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
FEMA gives notice that the statewide per capita indicator for recommending cost share adjustments for major disasters declared on or after January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018, is $143.
This notice applies to major disasters declared on or after January 1, 2018.
Christopher Logan, Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3834.
Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.47, the statewide per capita indicator that is used to recommend an increase of the Federal cost share from seventy-five percent (75%) to not more than ninety percent (90%) of the eligible cost of permanent work under section 406 and emergency work under section 403 and section 407 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act is adjusted annually. The adjustment to the indicator is based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published annually by the U.S. Department of Labor. For disasters declared on January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018, the qualifying indicator is $143 per capita of state or tribal population.
This adjustment is based on an increase of 2.1 percent in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the 12-month period that ended December 2017. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor released the information on January 12, 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 March 9, 2018.
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, email address
This proposed information collection previously published in the
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
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). 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 the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
30-Day Notice and request for comments; New Collection, 1601-NEW.
The DHS Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DHS previously published this information collection requests (ICR) in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until March 9, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to OMB Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security and sent via electronic mail to
Mike Villano, (202) 447-5446,
Under 41 U.S.C. 3306, agencies are required to use advance procurement planning and conduct market research. Advance planning and market research is a means of developing the agency's acquisition requirements. As part of this process, companies frequently ask to meet with DHS representatives for numerous reasons including: Sharing information on technologies and company capabilities or to ask how to do business with DHS. DHS needs the information being collected to prepare for productive meetings, share information across the enterprise about touchpoints the company has had at DHS, and to better track the frequency and number of meetings between DHS and companies. No personal information is being collected.
This is a means of improving the procurement process that is used to support the DHS mission. The above statute is implemented by 48 CFR (FAR) Part 10, Market Research. The information collection method the agency requests is not specifically mentioned in the regulation but it is nonetheless permissible because it reasonable and does not request more information than is necessary. Under 48 CFR (FAR) 1.102-4(e), Role of the Acquisition Team, agencies are allowed to implement a policy, procedure, strategy or practice if it is in the interest of the Government and is not otherwise prohibit.
The information is being used by DHS to help determine the department personnel who should be attending the meetings. It is also used by DHS
Upon a request for a meeting, DHS will ask companies to complete a request form and submit via email to the DHS Industry Liaison mailbox at
There is no assurance of confidentiality provided to the respondents for the collection of this information. The collection of information is covered by
This is a new information collection. OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Kevin Stevens, Director, Home Mortgage Insurance Division/451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; or email
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Name, Title, Division, Email, Phone Number: Harry Messner; Office of Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight; Department of Housing and Urban Development; 451 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410; email harry.messner
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
Compliance.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) will host three Tribal consultation sessions on the development of the Indian Trust Asset Management Demonstration Project authorized by the Indian Trust Asset Management Reform Act (ITARA), Public Law 114-178.
Written comments must be received by March 15 2018. Please see the
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
Please see the
Mr. Doug Lords, Deputy Bureau Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Trust
The ITARA became law on June 22, 2016. Title II of ITARA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to establish and carry out an Indian trust asset management demonstration project (demonstration project or project). The demonstration project will allow participating Tribes to enter into, approve, and carry out surface leasing transaction or forest land management activity without approval of the Secretary if certain conditions are met.
Once the demonstration project is established, eligible Tribes may request to participate by submitting to the Secretary a complete application package. Applications must include a copy of a resolution or other appropriate action by the governing body of the Indian Tribe in support of or authorizing the application and state that the Indian Tribe is requesting to participate in the demonstration project. The Secretary will provide a written notice to each Tribe approved to participate in the project.
Tribes that have been selected to participate in the project may submit to the Secretary a proposed Indian trust asset management plan. Under section 204(a)(2) of ITARA, Indian trust asset management plans must:
(A) Identify the trust assets that will be subject to the plan;
(B) Establish trust asset management objectives and priorities for Indian trust assets that are located within the reservation, or otherwise subject to the jurisdiction, of the Indian Tribe;
(C) Allocate trust asset management funding that is available for the Indian trust assets subject to the plan in order to meet the trust asset management objectives and priorities;
(D) Identify functions or activities that are being or will be performed by the Indian Tribe under contract, compacts, or other agreements under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5301
(E) Establish procedures for nonbinding mediation or resolution of any dispute between the Indian Tribe and the United States relating to the trust asset management plan;
(F) Include a process for the Indian Tribe and the Federal agencies affected by the trust asset management plan to conduct evaluations to ensure that trust assets are being managed in accordance with the plan; and
(G) Identify any Federal regulations that will be superseded by the plan.
Further, in accordance with section 204(c), an Indian trust asset management plan, and any activity carried out under the plan, shall not be approved unless the proposed plan is consistent with any treaties, statutes, and executive orders that are applicable to the trust assets, or the management of the trust assets, identified in the plan.
The Secretary may approve an Indian trust asset management plan that includes a provision authorizing the Tribe to enter into, approve, and carry out a surface leasing transaction or forest management activity without approval of the Secretary, regardless of whether the surface leasing transaction or forest land management activity would require such an approval under otherwise applicable law (including regulations), under certain conditions described in section 205. Under section 204(b), the Secretary has 120 days to approve or disapprove a Tribe's proposed management plan.
A draft template of an Indian trust asset management plan is available at the following website:
The BIA will host two on-site Tribal consultations sessions and one telephonic consultation as follows:
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to inform the public and interested State and local government officials of the filing of Plats of Survey in Nevada.
Unless otherwise stated filing takes effect at 10:00 a.m. on the dates indicated below.
Michael O. Harmening, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, NV 89502-7147, phone: 775-861-6490. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
1. The Amended Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on October 25, 2016:
The amended plat, in one sheet, representing a correction to the plat accepted on September 1, 2016 and officially filed on September 12, 2016, in Township 19 South, Range 62 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 959, was accepted on October 17, 2016.
2. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on February 15, 2017:
The plat, in five sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the 1893-1899 U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey California-Nevada oblique boundary line, the second standard parallel north through a portion of range 21 east, portions of the east boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of certain sections, Township 10 North, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada under Group No. 871, was accepted on January 31, 2017.
3. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on February 15, 2017:
The plat, in six sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of the 1893-1899 U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey California-Nevada oblique boundary line between the 19+1/2 mile corner and the 20+1 mile corner, the second standard parallel north through a portion of range 21 east, portions of the east and north boundaries and a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of certain sections, Township 11 North, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 901, was accepted on February 2, 2017.
4. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on March 22, 2017:
The plat, in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey and the corrective dependent resurvey of a portion of the north boundary and the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, the subdivision of the section 5, and a metes-and-bounds survey in section 5, Township 15 South, Range 66 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 955, was accepted on March 21, 2017. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.
5. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on March 30, 2017:
The plat, in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines, and Mineral Survey No. 37B, and the subdivision of section 32, Township 45 North, Range 56 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 964, was accepted on March 29, 2017. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the United States Forest Service.
6. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on April 25, 2017:
The plat, in four sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and portions of certain mineral surveys, the subdivision of sections 22 and 23, and the metes-and-bounds survey of the centerline of Nevada State Route 321 through a portion of the NW
7. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on April 26, 2017:
The plat, in one sheet representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and portions of the subdivision-of-section lines of section 7, the further subdivision of section 7 and a metes-and-bounds survey in section 7, Township 15 South, Range 66 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 966, was accepted on April 20, 2017. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.
8. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on May 31, 2017:
The plat, in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and the subdivision of section 17, Township 47 North, Range 56 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 963, was accepted on May 26, 2017. This survey was executed to meet certain administration needs of the Bureau of Land Management.
9. The Supplemental Plat of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on July 19, 2017:
The supplemental plat, in one sheet, showing amended lotting in section 3, Township 7 South, Range 41
10. The Plats of Survey of the following described lands were officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on September 28, 2017:
A plat, in two sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the west boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of sections 30 and 32, Township 18 South, Range 60 East, Mount Diablo Meridian Nevada, under Group No. 945, was accepted on September 21, 2017. This survey was executed to meet certain administration needs of the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service.
A plat, in three sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the north boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines, the subdivision-of-section lines of section 1 and portions of the subdivision-of-section lines of section 3 and 4, the subdivision of section 2, the further subdivision of sections 1 and 3, and metes-and-bounds surveys in sections 1, 2, and 4, Township 19 South, Range 60 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 945, was accepted September 21, 2017. This survey was executed to meet certain administration needs of the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service.
A plat, in two sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the west and north boundaries, a portion of the subdivisional lines and portions of the subdivision-of-section lines of sections 6 and 7, the subdivision of sections 4, 5, 8, and 10 and metes-and-bounds surveys in sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10, Township 19 South, Range 61 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 945, was accepted on September 21, 2017. This survey was executed to meet certain administration needs of the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service.
11. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on December 21, 2017:
The plat, in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivision of section 24, the further subdivision of section 24, and a metes-and-bounds survey in section 24, Township 19 South, Range 61 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 967, was accepted on December 19, 2017. This survey was executed to meet certain administration needs of the Bureau of Land Management.
12. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on January 11, 2018:
The plat, in twelve sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines and portions of the subdivision-of-section lines of section 31, the subdivision of sections 4 and 8, and metes-and-bounds surveys of the easterly and westerly right-of-way lines of the Nevada Northern Railway Hiline and Mainline, Township 17, North, Range 64 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 853 was accepted on January 10, 2018. This survey was executed to meet certain administration needs of the Bureau of Land Management.
The surveys, amended plats, and supplemental plats listed above are now the basic record for describing the lands for all authorized purposes. These records have been placed in the open files in the BLM Nevada State Office and are available to the public as a matter of information. Copies of the surveys and related field notes may be furnished to the public upon payment of the appropriate fees.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of cancellation.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has canceled its withdrawal application and the withdrawal proposal relating to 1,337,904 acres of public lands within designated California Desert National Conservation Lands. The BLM has determined that the lands are no longer needed in connection with the proposed withdrawal. This notice terminates the temporary segregation from location and entry under the United States mining laws, subject to valid existing rights, the provision of existing withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of applicable law, as described further below. The BLM has also terminated the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement evaluating this application and proposal.
This Notice is applicable on February 7, 2018.
Russell Scofield, Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Implementation Lead, phone: 760-833-7139, 1201 Bird Center Drive, Palm Springs, CA 992262-8001; email
A Notice of Proposed Withdrawal was published in the
Pursuant to 43 CFR 2310.1-4, the segregative effect for the lands described in 81 FR 95738 is terminated and the lands opened as follows: At 10 a.m. on March 9, 2018, the public lands described will be opened to location and entry under the United States mining laws, subject to valid existing rights, the provision of existing withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of applicable law. Appropriation of lands under the mining laws prior to the date and time of restoration is unauthorized. Any such attempted appropriation, including attempted adverse possession under 30 U.S.C. 38, shall vest no rights against the United States. Acts required to establish a location and to initiate a right of possession are governed by State law where not in conflict with Federal law. The BLM will not intervene in disputes between rival locators over possessory rights given that Congress has provided for such determinations in local courts.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-585-586 and 731-TA-1383-1384 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of stainless steel flanges from China and India, provided for in subheadings 7307.21.10 and 7307.21.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce to be subsidized and sold at less-than-fair-value.
January 23, 2018.
Celia Feldpausch (202-205-2387), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
Legal Services Corporation.
Notice.
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) issues this Notice describing the process for submission of Letters of Intent to Apply for 2018 funding from the LSC Technology Initiative Grant program. This notice and application information are posted at:
LSC will not accept applications submitted after the application deadline unless an extension of the deadline has been approved in advance (see Waiver Authority). Therefore, allow sufficient time for online submission.
LSC will provide confirmation via email upon receipt of the completed electronic submission of each Letter of Intent. Keep this email as verification that the program's LOI was submitted and received. If no confirmation email is received, inquire about the status of your LOI at
Letters of Intent must be submitted electronically at
For information on the status of a current TIG project, contact Eric Mathison, Program Analyst, Telephone: 202-295-1535; Email:
For questions about projects in CT, IL, IN, ME, MA, MI, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, WI, WV, VT, contact David Bonebrake, Program Counsel, Telephone: 202.295.1547; Email:
For questions about projects in AK, AZ, CA, CO, GU, HI, ID, IA, KS, MP, MN, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, ND, OK, OR, SD, TX, UT, WA, WY, contact Glenn Rawdon, Senior Program Counsel, Telephone: 202.295.1552; Email:
For questions about projects in AL, AR, DC, FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MS, MO, NC, PR, SC, TN, VI, VA, contact Jane Ribadeneyra, Program Analyst, Telephone: 202.295.1554, Email:
If you have a general question, please email
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) issues this Notice describing the criteria governing submission and processing of Letters of Intent to Apply for Technology Initiative Grants (TIG). Since LSC's TIG program was established in 2000, LSC has made over 700 grants totaling more than $63 million. This grant program funds technology tools that help achieve LSC's goal of increasing the quantity and quality of legal services available to eligible persons. Projects funded under the TIG program develop, test, and replicate innovative technologies that can enable grant recipients and state justice communities to improve low-income persons' access to high-quality legal assistance through an integrated and well managed technology system.
The Legal Services Corporation awards Technology Initiative Grant funds through an open, competitive, and impartial selection process. All prospective applicants for 2018 TIG funds must submit a Letter of Intent to Apply (LOI) prior to submitting a formal application. The format and contents of the LOI should conform to the requirements specified below in Section IV.
Through the LOI process, LSC selects those projects that have a reasonable chance of success in the competitive grant process based on LSC's analysis of the project description and other information provided in the LOI. LSC will solicit full proposals for the selected projects.
Technology Initiative Grant funds are subject to all LSC requirements, including the requirements of the Legal Services Corporation Act (LSC Act), any applicable appropriations acts and any other applicable laws, rules, regulations, policies, guidelines, instructions, and other directives of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), including, but not limited to, the LSC Audit Guide for Recipients and Auditors, the Accounting Guide for LSC Recipients, and the CSR Handbook, with any amendments to the foregoing adopted before or during the period of the grant. Before submitting a Letter of Intent to Apply, applicants should be familiar with LSC's subgrant requirements at 45 CFR Part 1627 (see
For additional information and resources regarding TIG compliance, including subgrants, third-party contracting, conflicts of interest, grant modification procedures, and special TIG grant assurances, see LSC's TIG compliance web page.
Only current LSC basic field grant recipients awarded at least a one-year basic field grant term are eligible to apply for TIG.
LSC will not award a TIG to any applicant that is not in good standing on any existing TIG projects. Applicants must be up to date according to the milestone schedule on all existing TIG projects prior to submitting an LOI, or have requested and received an adjustment to the original milestone schedule. LSC will not award a TIG to any applicant that has not made satisfactory progress on prior TIGs. LSC recipients that have had a previous TIG terminated for failure to provide timely reports and submissions are not eligible to receive a TIG for three years after their earlier grant was terminated. This policy does not apply to applicants that worked with LSC to end a TIG early after an unsuccessful project implementation resulting from technology limitations, a failed proof of concept, or other reasons outside of the applicant's control.
The amount of TIG funding available will depend on the 2018 fiscal year appropriation to the LSC from Congress, which had not been determined by January 31, 2018, the date this notice was issued. The federal government is currently operating under a Continuing Resolution (CR) that expires February 8, 2018. The Continuing Resolution maintains funding at FY 2017 levels, which for TIG is $4 million, but with an across-the-board reduction of 0.6791 percent, or $27,164 for TIG. We anticipate that Congress will pass another CR to continue funding the federal government at FY 2017 levels if they do not pass an FY 2018 budget by midnight February 8th. If not, the federal government will shut down. In 2017, 25 TIG projects received funding
The TIG program encourages applicants to reach out to and include in TIG projects others interested in access to justice—the courts, bar associations, pro bono projects, libraries, and social service agencies. Partnerships can enhance the reach, effectiveness, and sustainability of many projects.
LSC will accept projects in three application categories:
The Innovations and Enhancements Category is designated for projects that: (1) Implement new or innovative approaches for using technology in legal services delivery; or (2) enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of existing technologies so that they may be better used to increase the quality and quantity of services to clients.
LSC recommends a minimum amount for funding requests in this category of $40,000, but projects with lower budgets will be considered. There is no maximum amount for TIG funding requests that are within the total appropriation for TIG. Although there is no funding limit or matching requirement for applications in this category, additional weight is given to projects with strong support from partners. Proposals for initiatives with broad applicability and/or that would have impact throughout the legal services community are strongly encouraged.
The Replication and Adaptation category is for proposals that seek to replicate, adapt, or provide added value to the work of prior technology projects. This includes, but is not limited to, the implementation and improvement of tested methodologies and technologies from previous TIG projects. Applicants may also replicate technology projects funded outside of the TIG program, including sectors outside the legal aid community, such as social services organizations, the broader non-profit community, and the private sector. LSC recommends a minimum amount for funding requests in this category of $40,000, but projects with lower budgets will be considered. There is no maximum amount for TIG funding requests that are within the total appropriation for TIG.
Project proposals in the Replication and Adaptation category may include, but are not limited to:
LSC requires that any original software developed with TIG funding be available to other legal services programs at little or no cost. Applicants should look to previous successful TIG projects and determine how they could be replicated at a reduced cost from the original project, and/or how they could be expanded and/or enhanced. Projects where original software or content has already been created lend themselves to replication, and LSC encourages programs to look to these projects to see how they could benefit the delivery systems in their state.
Law Help Interactive (LHI) is an automated document server powered by HotDocs Server and made available to any LSC funded program at no charge. See
Even if a form differs from one state to another, the information needed to populate a form will, for the most part, be similar. (What are the names of the plaintiff, the defendant, the children, etc.?). This means the interviews are more easily replicated than form templates. These form templates and interviews are available to be modified as needed. Applicants should identify which forms and templates are to be adapted, and then estimate the cost to do this and compare that to the cost of developing them from scratch. LHI has the capacity to support Spanish, Vietnamese, Mandarin and Korean language interviews. In addition, LHI has been integrated with other systems to allow the flow of information between LHI and court e-filing systems and legal aid case management systems. The “Connect” feature enables pro bono programs from across a state to use LHI interviews and forms to assign pre-screened pro bono cases and their documents to panel attorneys. For additional information, including examples, best practices, models and training materials, see the LawHelp Interactive Resource Center at
In addition to replicating other TIG funded technology projects, LSC encourages replication of proven technologies from non-LSC funded legal aid organizations as well as sectors outside the legal aid community. Ideas for replication may be found through resources and organizations such as the Legal Services National Technology Assistance Project (LSNTAP), the American Bar Association, international legal aid providers such as the Legal Services Society of British Columbia and HiiL's Innovating Justice project, Idealware (see the article on Unleashing Innovation), NTEN, and TechSoup.
In 2015 LSC updated its publication Technologies That Should Be in Place in a Legal Aid Office Today, often referred to as the LSC Technology Baselines. The updated Baselines demonstrate LSC's commitment to improving the use of technology across its grantee organizations. LSC also recognizes that grantees need to have sufficient technology infrastructure in place before they can take on a more innovative TIG project. Therefore, only LSC grantees that have not had a TIG award in the last five years (since 2013) are eligible to apply for a Technology Improvement Project. The maximum amount for funding requests in this category is $25,000 to conduct a technology assessment, business process improvement and/or a technology planning project.
Many legal aid organizations do not have internal expertise or capacity to take on such projects. An award for a Technology Improvement Project is intended to provide funding for appropriate consulting services to conduct the technology assessment, business process improvement and/or technology planning process. The project should result in a plan for the organization to make the investments needed to improve its use of technology in the delivery of legal services.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a popular topic in the legal services
LSC also believes that client-facing apps can incorporate AI to help low-income individuals complete legal tasks. Products such as the DoNotPay chatbot show that people seeking legal assistance are eager to use these tools, and organizations should focus on how they can provide high-quality user experiences that help users get through their legal process.
In both cases, applicants should aim for using accessible systems with open Application Programming Interfaces (API) that allow legal aid providers to collaborate in this emerging area and result in tools that benefit the entire community. Applicants should also explore how large data sets—such as case or website data—can best be leveraged to improve the quality of these systems.
Applicants may submit multiple LOIs, and a separate LOI should be submitted for each project for which funding is sought.
Letters of Intent must be submitted using the online system at
Then, for the categories Innovations and Enhancements and Replication and Adaptation, you will have the following five fields:
1. Description of Project (maximum 2500 characters)—Briefly describe the basic elements of the project, including any specific technologies the project will develop or implement, how they will be developed, how they will operate, the function they will serve within the legal services delivery system, their expected impact, and other similar factors. (Only the impact should be highlighted here; more details about the system's benefits should be provided below).
2. Major Benefits (maximum 2500 characters)—Describe the specific ways in which the project will increase or improve services to clients and/or enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of legal aid organization operations. To the extent feasible, discuss both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of these benefits.
3. Estimated Costs (maximum 1500 characters)—This should include the amount of funding you are seeking from the TIG program, followed by the estimated total project cost, summarizing the anticipated costs of the major components of the project. List anticipated contributions, both in-kind and monetary, from all partners involved in the project.
4. Major Partners (maximum 1500 characters)—Identify organizations that are expected to be important partners. Specify the role(s) each partner will play.
5. Innovation/Replication (maximum 1500 characters)—Identify how and why the proposed project is new and innovative and/or is a replication or adaptation of a previous technology project. Identify how and why the proposed project can significantly benefit and/or be replicated by other legal services providers and/or the legal services community at large.
For the category Technology Improvement Project, you will have these four fields:
1. Description of Project (maximum 2500 characters)—Briefly describe what type of project will be undertaken, such as a technology assessment, business process analysis or technology planning process. Describe how this will lead to a plan for improving the program's operations. Also, discuss who will be responsible for carrying out the activities, such as by internal staff or an outside contractor.
2. Major Benefits (maximum 2500 characters)—Describe the promise that the project has to increase or improve services to clients and/or enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of program operations. To the extent feasible, discuss both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of these benefits.
3. Estimated Costs (maximum 1500 characters)—Start by stating the amount of funding you are seeking from the TIG program, and then give the estimated total project cost, summarizing the anticipated costs of the major components of the project. List anticipated contributions, both in-kind and monetary, of all partners involved in the project.
4. Implementation (maximum 1500 characters)—Discuss the organizations commitment to implement the plan or recommendations that result from the project, including probable financing sources.
LSC will initially review all LOIs to determine whether they conform to the required format and clearly present all of the required elements listed and described above. Failure to meet these requirements may result in rejection of the LOI.
LSC will review each LOI to identify those projects likely to improve access to justice, or to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and quality of legal services provided by grantees. The LOI will also be reviewed to determine the extent to which the project proposed is clearly described and well thought out, offers major benefits to our targeted client community, is cost-effective, involves all of the parties needed to make it successful and sustainable, and is either innovative or a cost-effective replication of prior successful projects. LSC will invite those applicants that satisfy these criteria to submit full applications.
LSC will notify successful applicants by April 20, 2018. Successful applicants will have until 11:59 p.m. EDT, Monday, June 4, 2018, to complete and submit full applications in the online application system.
LSC, upon its own initiative or when requested, may waive provisions in this Notice at its sole discretion. Waivers may be granted only for requirements that are discretionary and not mandated by statute or regulation. Any request for a waiver must set forth the reason for the request and be included in the application. LSC will not consider a request to extend the deadline for a Letter of Intent to Apply unless the extension request is received by LSC prior to the deadline.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when agencies no longer need them for current Government business. The records schedules authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. NARA publishes notice in the
NARA must receive requests for copies in writing by March 9, 2018. Once NARA finishes appraising the records, we will send you a copy of the schedule you requested. We usually prepare appraisal memoranda that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. You may also request these. If you do, we will also provide them once we have completed the appraisal. You have 30 days after we send to you these requested documents in which to submit comments.
You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA) using one of the following means:
You must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency that submitted the schedule, and a mailing address. If you would like an appraisal report, please include that in your request.
Margaret Hawkins, Director, by mail at Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA); National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001, by phone at 301-837-1799, or by email at
NARA publishes notice in the
Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing records retention periods and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. These schedules provide for timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the agency to dispose of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
The schedules listed in this notice are media neutral unless otherwise specified. An item in a schedule is media neutral when an agency may apply the disposition instructions to records regardless of the medium in which it creates or maintains the records. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media neutral unless the item is expressly limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1225.12(e).)
Agencies may not destroy Federal records without Archivist of the United States' approval. The Archivist approves destruction only after thoroughly considering the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value.
In addition to identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records (or notes that the schedule has agency-wide applicability when schedules cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency); provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction); and includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it also includes information about the records. You may request additional information about the disposition process at the addresses above.
1. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (DAA-0310-2018-0001, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Peer review case files consisting of administrative records such as peer review documents, review panel organization and composition, and project review information.
2. Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (DAA-0361-2017-0012, 5 items, 5 temporary items). Records related to product management and distribution.
3. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (DAA-0560-2018-0002, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Requests and authorizations for Federal air marshals to carry personal weapons.
4. Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (DAA-0566-2017-0035, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Disabled veteran leave request case files.
5. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons (DAA-0129-2017-0002, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Case files of inmates incarcerated in Federal institutions.
6. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Administrative correction for incorrect date spans on schedule N1-65-04-04 approved in 2004, covering the FBI's transition to a revised recordkeeping practice in 1988. N1-65-04-04 incorrectly stated that the switch in recordkeeping practices for the Office of Origin occurred in 1995 and for the Auxiliary Office in 1991, when it actually began on a rolling basis in 1988 for both. The error in date spans created an inadvertent gap, resulting in some records created between 1988 and 1995 being unscheduled.
7. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration (DAA-0015-2018-0001, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Records related to eligibility and
8. National Indian Gaming Commission, Division of Public Affairs (DAA-0600-2017-0012, 9 items, 2 temporary items). Non-senior level biographical files and speeches. Proposed for permanent retention are bulletins, press releases, senior official biographical files and speeches, and digital audiUS ovisual records documenting agency programs and activities.
9. Postal Regulatory Commission, Agency-wide (DAA-0458-2018-0001, 37 items, 11 temporary items). Staff records related to internal briefings, draft reports, and protective conditions. Proposed for permanent retention are records related to dockets, required reporting, high level officials, and Commission meetings and hearings.
10. United States International Trade Commission, Office of the General Counsel (DAA-0081-2017-0004, 11 items, 10 temporary items). Administrative or operational related legal memoranda, litigation case files, investigations and summaries of violations to Commission rules, trade policy support files, policy development and review files, and working files. Proposed for permanent retention are historically significant legal memoranda.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) on March 7-8, 2018. A sample of agenda items to be discussed during the public session includes: (1) A discussion on medical-related events; (2) an update on the worldwide supply and domestic production of molybdenum-99; (3) a discussion on the resources needed to address the development of emerging medical technologies; and (4) a discussion of staff's evaluation of the ACMUI's recommendations related to medical event reporting under title 10
Philip O. Alderson, M.D. will chair the meeting. Dr. Alderson will conduct the meeting in a manner that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. The following procedures apply to public participation in the meeting:
1. Persons who wish to provide a written statement should submit an electronic copy to Ms. Holiday using the contact information listed above. All submittals must be received by March 2, 2018, three business days before the meeting, and must pertain to the topics on the agenda for the meeting.
2. Questions and comments from members of the public will be permitted during the meeting, at the discretion of the Chairman.
3. The draft transcript and meeting summary will be available on ACMUI's website
4. Persons who require special services, such as those for the hearing impaired, should notify Ms. Holiday of their planned attendance.
This meeting will be held in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (primarily Section 161a); the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App); and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR part 7.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and is issuing License Amendment Nos. 104 and 103 to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF-91 and NPF-92, respectively. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., and Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC, MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC, MEAG Power SPVP, LLC, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensee); for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.
The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information that is requested in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
The exemptions and amendments were issued on December 20, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Paul Kallan, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2809; email:
The NRC is granting an exemption from paragraph B of section III, “Scope and Contents,” of Appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of title 10 of the
Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and section VIII.A.4 of appendix D to 10 CFR part 52. The license amendments were found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17332A521.
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VEGP Units 3 and 4 (COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92). The exemption documents for VEGP Units 3 and 4 can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML17332A515 and ML17332A516, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML17332A517 and ML17332A519, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to Vogtle Units 3 and Unit 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated July 14, 2017, and supplemented by letter dated October 3, 2017, the licensee requested from the Commission an exemption to allow departures from Tier 1 information in the certified DCD incorporated by reference 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design,” as part of license amendment request (LAR) 17-022, “Addition of a Residual Heat Removal Suction Relief Valve for Low-Temperature Overpressure Protection.”
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1, of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17332A521, the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law;
B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;
C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;
D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;
E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and
F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption from the certified DCD Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes to Appendix C of the Facility Combined Licenses as described in the licensee's request dated July 14, 2017, and supplemented by letter dated October 3, 2017. This exemption is related to, and necessary for, the granting of License Amendment Nos. 104 (Unit 3) and 103 (Unit 4), which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 5.0, “Environmental Consideration,” of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML17332A521), these exemptions meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. These exemptions are effective as of the date of its issuance.
By letter dated July 14, 2017, and supplemented by letter dated October 3, 2017, the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COLs for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92. The proposed amendment is described in Section I of this
The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemptions and issued the amendments that the licensee requested on July 14, 2017 and supplemented October 3, 2017.
The exemptions and amendments were issued on December 20, 2017 as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML17332A513).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from elements of the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic AP1000 design control document (DCD) and is issuing License Amendment Nos. 106 and 105 to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF-91 and NPF-92, respectively. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., and Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC, MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC, MEAG Power SPVP, LLC, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (collectively referred to as the licensee); for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.
The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information asked for in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
The exemption and amendment were issued on January 11, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
William (Billy) Gleaves, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5848; email:
The NRC is granting an exemption from paragraph B of section III, “Scope and Contents,” of appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of title 10 of the
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VEGP Units 3 and 4 (COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92). The exemption documents for VEGP Units 3 and 4 can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML17332A152 and ML17332A153, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to VEGP Units 3 and Unit 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated November 30, 2016, as revised by letters dated June 16, and October 6, 2017, Southern Nuclear Operating Company requested from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) an exemption to allow departures from Tier 1 information in the certified Design Control Document (DCD) incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design,” as part of license amendment request (LAR) 16-031, “Shield Building Roof Changes.”
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation which can be found in (ADAMS Accession No. ML17332A154) the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law;
B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;
C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;
D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;
E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and
F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption from the certified DCD Tier 1 information, allowing changes to the plant-specific DCD Tier 1 with corresponding changes to Appendix C of the Facility Combined License as described in the request dated November 30, 2016, as revised by letters dated June 16, and October 6, 2017. This exemption is related to, and necessary for, the granting of License Amendment No. 106, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 5.0 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML17332A154), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.
By letter dated November 30, 2016, (ADAMS Accession No. ML16335A453) and revised by letters dated June 16 and October 6, 2017, (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML17167A335 and ML17279B086, respectively), the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COLs for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92. The proposed amendment is described in Section I of this
The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or COL, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested on November 30, 2016, as revised by letters dated June 16, and October 6, 2017.
The exemption and amendment were issued to the licensee on January 11, 2018, as part of a combined package (ADAMS Accession No. ML17332A146).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
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 A. 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 February 2, 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 A. 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 February 2,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 21.1 to adopt a new Time in Force and to modify an existing Time in Force applicable to the Exchange's equity options platform (“BZX Options”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange propose to adopt a new Time in Force under Rule 21.1, Definitions. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt the Time in Force of “Good Til Cancelled”, or “GTC”, which, as proposed shall mean, for an order so designated, that if after entry into the System, the order is not fully executed, the order (or the unexecuted portion thereof) shall remain available for potential display and/or execution unless cancelled by the entering party, or until the option expires, whichever comes first. The Exchange proposes to adopt the Time in Force of GTC in sub-paragraph (f)(4) of Rule 21.1, which is currently reserved. The proposed definition of GTC is based on and identical to Rule 21.1(f)(4) of the Exchange's affiliate, EDGX.
The Exchange also proposes to amend sub-paragraph (f)(1) of Exchange Rule 21.1, to modify the Good Til Day (or “GTD”) Time in Force. Currently, GTD orders are limited to the specific trading day on which they are entered, as the Exchange does not currently offer any orders that continue to remain on the Exchange for more than a single trading day (
The Exchange does not believe that offering GTD functionality that allows orders to remain with the Exchange for more than one trading day raises any issues that are not already present with GTC orders. In turn, GTC is a common time in force and is typically implemented to allow orders to remain for more than one trading day.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes the proposed amendment will provide additional flexibility to Users that wish to enter an order that will last past the trading day on which it is entered by allowing such Users to either enter an order with the GTC Time in Force, without a specific expiration time, or to use the GTD Time in Force to set a specific expiration time on an order. As noted above, the Exchange proposes to adopt the GTC Time in Force in the near future, which will persist over multiple trading days unless cancelled, and believes that the Time in Force of GTD should similarly be able to persist over multiple trading days. The Exchange believes it could be confusing and inconsistent to offer a GTC Time in Force that can persist for longer than a single trading day and a GTD Time in Force, which commonly means “Good Til Date”, but that would
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposal will promote consistency between the Exchange and its affiliated exchange, EDGX Options, by offering the GTC Time in Force. The proposed change to GTD is a minor update to an existing Time in Force, given the update to the Exchange's technology that will allow orders to persist for more than one trading day. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will have any direct impact on competition. Thus, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal creates any significant impact on competition.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 21, 2017, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
This order approves the proposal for a pilot period of twelve months.
The Exchange proposes to permit the listing and trading, on a pilot basis, of p.m.-settled options on broad-based indexes with nonstandard expiration dates for a period of twelve months (the “Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program” or “Pilot Program”) from the date of approval of this proposed rule change. The Pilot Program would permit both weekly expirations (“Weekly Expirations”) and end of month (“EOM”) expirations similar to those of the a.m.-settled broad-based index options, except that the exercise settlement value will be based on the index value derived from the closing prices of component stocks. The proposal is substantially similar to Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”) Rule 24.9(e), Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program
The Exchange proposes to add new Supplementary Material .07(a), Weekly Expirations, to Rule 2009. Under the proposed new rule the Exchange would be permitted to open for trading Weekly Expirations on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on any Monday, Wednesday, or Friday (other than the third Friday-of-the-month or days that coincide with an EOM expiration). Weekly Expirations would be subject to all provisions of ISE Rule 2009 and would be treated the same as options on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month. Unlike the standard monthly options, however, Weekly Expirations would be p.m.-settled. New series in Weekly Expirations could be added up to and including on the expiration date for an expiring Weekly Expiration.
The maximum number of expirations that could be listed for each Weekly Expiration (
Weekly Expirations that are first listed in a given class could expire up to four weeks from the actual listing date. If the last trading day of a month were a Monday, Wednesday, or Friday and the Exchange were to list EOMs and Weekly Expirations as applicable in a given class, the Exchange would list an EOM instead of a Weekly Expiration in the given class. Other expirations in the same class would not be counted as part of the maximum number of Weekly Expirations for a broad-based index class. If the Exchange were not open for business on a respective Monday, the normally Monday expiring Weekly Expirations would expire on the following business day. If the Exchange were not open for business on a respective Wednesday or Friday, the normally Wednesday or Friday expiring Weekly Expirations would expire on the previous business day.
Under the proposal, the Exchange could open for trading EOMs on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on the last trading day of the month. EOMs would be subject to all provisions of Rule 2009 and treated the same as options on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month. However, the EOMs would be p.m.-settled and new series in EOMs could be added up to and including on the expiration date for an expiring EOM.
The maximum number of expirations that could be listed for EOMs in a given class would be the same as the maximum number of expirations permitted for standard options on the same broad-based index. EOM expirations would not need to be for consecutive end of month expirations. However, the expiration date of a non-consecutive expiration may not be beyond what would be considered the last expiration date if the maximum number of expirations were listed consecutively. EOMs that are first listed in a given class could expire up to four weeks from the actual listing date. Other expirations would not be counted as part of the maximum numbers of EOM expirations for a broad-based index class.
The Exchange proposes that Weekly Expirations and EOMs would be subject to the same rules that currently govern the trading of standard monthly broad-based index options, including sales practice rules, margin requirements, and floor trading procedures. Contract terms for Weekly Expirations and EOMs would be the same as those for standard monthly broad-based index options, except that the exercise settlement value will be based on the index value derived from the closing prices of component stocks. Since Weekly Expirations and EOMs will be a new type of series, and not a new class, the Exchange proposes that Weekly Expirations and EOMs shall be aggregated for any applicable reporting and other requirements.
The Exchange represents that it has analyzed its capacity and believes that it and the Options Price Reporting Authority have the necessary systems capacity to handle any additional traffic associated with the listing of the maximum number nonstandard expirations permitted under the Pilot Program.
As part of the Pilot Program, the Exchange proposes to submit a Pilot Program report to the Commission at
For all Weekly Expirations and EOM series, the annual report will contain the following volume and open interest data for each broad-based index overlying Weekly Expiration and EOM options:
(1) Monthly volume aggregated for all Weekly Expiration and EOM series,
(2) Volume in Weekly Expiration and EOM series aggregated by expiration date,
(3) Month-end open interest aggregated for all Weekly Expiration and EOM series,
(4) Month-end open interest for EOM series aggregated by expiration date and open interest for Weekly Expiration series aggregated by expiration date,
(5) Ratio of monthly aggregate volume in Weekly Expiration and EOM series to total monthly class volume, and
(6) Ratio of month-end open interest in EOM series to total month-end class open interest and ratio of open interest in each Weekly Expiration series to total class open interest.
In addition, the annual report will contain the information noted above for standard Expiration Friday, a.m.-settled series, if applicable, for the period covered in the annual report as well as for the six-month period prior to the initiation of the Pilot Program.
Upon request by the SEC, the Exchange will provide a data file containing: (1) Weekly Expiration and EOM option volume data aggregated by series, and (2) Weekly Expiration open interest for each expiring series and EOM month-end open interest for expiring series.
In the annual report, the Exchange also proposes to identify Weekly Expiration and EOM trading patterns by undertaking a time series analysis of open interest in Weekly Expiration and EOM series aggregated by expiration date compared to open interest in near-term standard Expiration Friday a.m.-settled series in order to determine whether users are shifting positions from standard series to Weekly Expiration and EOM series. In addition, to the extent that data on other weekly or monthly p.m. settled products from other exchanges is publicly available, the annual report will also compare open interest with these options in order to determine whether users are shifting positions from other weekly or monthly p.m.-settled products to the Weekly Expiration and EOM series. Declining open interest in standard series or the weekly or monthly p.m.-settled products of other exchanges accompanied by rising open interest in Weekly Expiration and EOM series would suggest that users are shifting positions.
For each Weekly Expiration and EOM expiration that has open interest that exceeds certain minimum thresholds, the annual report will contain the following analysis related to index price changes and, if needed, underlying share trading volume at the close on expiration dates:
(1) A comparison of index price changes at the close of trading on a given expiration date with comparable price changes from a control sample. The data will include a calculation of percentage price changes for various time intervals and compare that information to the respective control sample. Raw percentage price change data as well as percentage price change data normalized for prevailing market volatility, as measured by an appropriate index agreed by the Commission and the Exchange, will be provided; and
(2) if needed, a calculation of share volume for a sample set of the component securities representing an upper limit on share trading that could be attributable to expiring in-the-money Weekly Expiration and EOM expirations. The data, if needed, will include a comparison of the calculated share volume for securities in the sample set to the average daily trading volumes of those securities over a sample period.
The minimum open interest parameters, control sample, time intervals, method for selecting the component securities, and sample periods will be determined by the Exchange and the Commission.
After careful review of the proposed rule change, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange.
While the Commission has had concerns about the adverse effects and impact of p.m.-settlement upon market volatility and the operation of fair and orderly markets on the underlying cash market at or near the close of trading, it has approved on a limited basis p.m.-settlement for cash-settled options.
Like Phlx, the Exchange patterns its proposal after CBOE's and includes the same additional data element that Phlx includes in the annual report: An analysis of publicly available data concerning trading patterns with respect to other p.m.-settled products from other exchanges. In all other aspects, the Exchange's proposed and Phlx's and CBOE's existing Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Programs are identical.
The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal strikes a reasonable balance between the Exchange's desire to offer a wider array of investment opportunities and the need to avoid unnecessary proliferation of options series that may burden certain liquidity providers and further stress options
The Commission notes that the Exchange will provide the Commission with the annual report analyzing volume and open interest of EOMs and Weekly Expirations that will also contain information and analysis of EOMs and Weekly Expirations trading patterns and index price volatility and share trading activity for series that exceed minimum parameters. This information should be useful to the Commission as it evaluates whether allowing p.m.-settlement for EOMs and Weekly Expirations has resulted in increased market and price volatility in the underlying component stocks, particularly at expiration. The Pilot Program information should help the Commission and the Exchange assess the impact on the markets and determine whether changes to these programs are necessary or appropriate. Furthermore, the Exchange's ongoing analysis of the Pilot Program should help it monitor any potential risks from large p.m.-settled positions and take appropriate action, if warranted.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 6, 2017, the Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Under the terms of the current Short Term Option Series Program, after an option class has been approved for listing and trading on the Exchange, the Exchange may open for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day series of options on that class that expire on each of the next five Fridays, provided that such Friday is not a Friday in which monthly options series or Quarterly Options Series expire.
The Exchange proposes to expand the Short Term Option Series to permit Phlx to open for trading, on any Monday or Friday that is a business day, series of options on SPY that expire on any Monday of the month that is a business day and is not a Monday in which Quarterly Options Series expires (“Monday SPY Expirations”).
The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In approving the proposal, the Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in Monday SPY Expirations.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act” or “Act”)
The MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule consisting of amendments to MSRB Rule G-21, on advertising (“proposed amended Rule G-21”), proposed new MSRB Rule G-40, on advertising by municipal advisors (“proposed Rule G-40”), and a technical amendment to MSRB Rule G-42, on duties of non-solicitor municipal advisors (“proposed amended Rule G-42,” together with proposed amended Rule G-21 and proposed Rule G-40, the “proposed rule change”). The MSRB requests that the proposed rule change become effective nine months from the date of SEC approval.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The MSRB has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Rule G-21 is a core fair practice rule of the MSRB. Rule G-21 applies to all advertisements by dealers, as defined by Rule G-21(a)(i).
Means any material (other than listings of offerings) published or used in any electronic or other public media, or any written or electronic promotional literature distributed or made generally available to customers or the public, including any notice, circular, report, market letter, form letter, telemarketing script, seminar text, press release concerning the products or services of the broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer, or reprint, or any excerpt of the foregoing or of a published article.
As such, Rule G-21 not only applies to print advertisements, but also applies to an advertisement “published or used in any electronic or other public media,” such as a social media post.
After considering the important suggestions made by market participants, the MSRB prepared proposed amended Rule G-21 to, among other things:
• Enhance the MSRB's fair-dealing provisions by promoting regulatory consistency among Rule G-21 and the advertising rules of other financial regulators; and
• promote regulatory consistency between Rule G-21(a)(ii), the definition of “form letter,” and FINRA Rule 2210's definition of “correspondence.”
Proposed amended Rule G-21 also makes a technical amendment in paragraph (e) to streamline the rule.
Concurrent with its efforts to enhance Rule G-21 and promote regulatory consistency among Rule G-21 and the advertising rules of other financial regulators, the MSRB prepared proposed Rule G-40 to address advertising by municipal advisors.
In August 2011, in the exercise of its new rulemaking authority over municipal advisors,
On September 20, 2013, the SEC adopted its final rules for municipal advisor registration that the SEC had proposed in 2010 (the “final rules”).
To inform its approach, the MSRB solicited general input from market participants about the nature of municipal advisor advertising and about how municipal advisors use advertising. That outreach included industry groups that represent non-solicitor and/or solicitor municipal advisors. As a result of that outreach and the valuable input received from market participants, the MSRB developed proposed Rule G-40.
Proposed Rule G-40 would apply to advertising by municipal advisors. Similar to proposed amended Rule G-21, proposed Rule G-40 would:
• Provide general provisions that define the terms “advertisement” and “form letter,” and would set forth the general standards and content standards for advertisements;
• provide the definition of professional advertisements, and would define the standard for those advertisements; and
• would require the approval by a principal, in writing, before the first use of an advertisement.
Also, proposed Rule G-40, similar to proposed amended Rule G-21,
Rule G-42(f)(iv) defines municipal advisory activities as “those activities that would cause a person to be a municipal advisor as defined in subsection (f)(iv) of this rule.” The proposed rule change would provide a technical amendment to Rule G-42(f)(iv) to correct the cross-reference. Proposed amended Rule G-42 would replace the reference to subsection (f)(iv) in Rule G-42(f)(iv) with the intended reference to subsection (f)(iii). Rule G-42(f)(iii) defines the term “municipal advisor” for purposes of Rule G-42.
To enhance Rule G-21's fair dealing requirements, as well as to promote regulatory consistency among Rule G-21 and the advertising rules of other financial regulators, proposed amended Rule G-21 would provide more specific content standards. Proposed amended Rule G-21 also would include revisions to the rule's general standards for advertisements.
Proposed amended Rule G-21(a)(iii) would add content standards to make explicit many of the MSRB's fair dealing obligations that follow from the MSRB's requirements set forth in Rule G-21 and Rule G-17, on conduct of municipal securities and municipal advisory activities, and the interpretive guidance the MSRB has provided under those rules, and to specifically address them to advertising.
• An advertisement be based on principles of fair dealing and good faith, be fair and balanced and provide a sound basis for evaluating the facts about any particular municipal security or type of municipal security, industry, or service, and that a dealer not omit any material fact or qualification if such omission, in light of the context presented, would cause the advertisement to be misleading;
• an advertisement not contain any false, exaggerated, unwarranted, promissory or misleading statement or claim;
• a dealer limit the types of information placed in a legend or footnote of an advertisement so as to not inhibit a customer's or potential customer's understanding of the advertisement;
• an advertisement provide statements that are clear and not misleading within the context that they are made, that the advertisement provide a balanced treatment of the benefits and risks, and that the advertisement is consistent with the risks inherent to the investment;
• a dealer consider the audience to which the advertisement will be directed and that the advertisement provide details and explanations appropriate to that audience;
• an advertisement not predict or project performance, imply that past performance will recur or make any exaggerated or unwarranted claim, opinion or forecast;
(1) A hypothetical illustration of mathematical principles, provided that it does not predict or project the performance of an investment; and
(2) An investment analysis tool, or a written report produced by an investment analysis tool.
• an advertisement not include a testimonial unless it satisfies certain conditions.
(1) If an advertisement contains a testimonial about a technical aspect of investing, the person making the testimonial must have the knowledge and experience to form a valid opinion;
(2) If an advertisement contains a testimonial about the investment advice or investment performance of a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer or its products, that advertisement must prominently disclose the following:
(a) The fact that the testimonial may be not be representative of the experience of other customers.
(b) The fact that the testimonial is no guarantee of future performance or success.
(c) If more than $100 in value is paid for the testimonial, the fact that it is a paid testimonial.
Proposed amended Rule G-21 also would expand upon the guidance provided by Rule A-12, on registration. Rule A-12(e) permits a dealer to state that it is MSRB registered in its advertising, including on its website. Proposed amended Rule G-21(a)(iii)(H) would continue to permit a dealer to state that it is MSRB registered. However, proposed amended Rule G-21(a)(iii)(H) would provide that a dealer shall only state in an advertisement that it is MSRB registered as long as, among other things, the advertisement complies with the applicable standards of all other MSRB rules and neither states nor implies that the MSRB endorses, indemnifies, or guarantees the dealer's business practices, selling methods, the type of security offered, or the security offered. By so doing, the proposed rule change would promote regulatory consistency with FINRA Rule 2210(e)'s analogous limitations on the use of FINRA's name and any other corporate name owned by FINRA.
Proposed amended Rule G-21(a)(iv), (b)(ii), and (c)(ii) would promote regulatory consistency among Rule G-21's general standard for advertisements, standard for professional advertisements, and standard for product advertisements (collectively, the “general standards”) and the content standards of FINRA Rule 2210(d). Currently, Rule G-21's general standards prohibit a dealer, in part, from publishing or disseminating material that is “materially false or misleading.” Proposed amended Rule G-21 would replace the phrase “materially false or misleading” with “any untrue statement of material fact” as well as add “or is otherwise false or misleading.” The MSRB believes that this harmonization with FINRA Rule 2210(d) would be consistent with Rule G-21's current general standards and would ensure consistent regulation between similar regulated entities.
Currently, Rule G-21(a)(ii) defines a “form letter,” in part, as a written letter distributed to 25
Supplementary Material .03 to proposed amended Rule G-21 would explain the term “person” when used in the context of a form letter under Rule G-21(a)(ii). Specifically, Supplementary Material .03 would explain that the number of “persons” is determined for the purposes of a response to a request for proposal (“RFP”), request for qualifications (“RFQ”) or similar request at the entity level. Therefore, for example, if a dealer were to respond to an RFP from Big City Water Authority, Big City Water Authority would count as one person, no matter how many persons employed by Big City Water Authority reviewed the dealer's response to the RFP.
Proposed amended Rule G-21 would contain a technical amendment to Rule G-21(e). To streamline and clarify the MSRB's rules, the proposed rule change would delete references to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. in Rule G-21(e)(ii)(F) and Rule G-21(e)(vi) because, for example, reference to any applicable regulatory body is sufficient and no limitation to any more narrow subset is intended.
Proposed Rule G-40, similar to Rule G-21, would set forth general provisions, address professional advertisements and require principal approval in writing for advertisements by municipal advisors before their first use. However, as discussed below, proposed Rule G-40 would not address product advertisements, as that term is defined in Rule G-21.
Proposed Rule G-40(a) would define the terms advertisement, form letter and municipal advisory client, and would provide content and general standards for advertisements by a non-solicitor or a solicitor municipal advisor.
any material (other than listings of offerings) published or used in any electronic or other public media, or any written or electronic promotional literature distributed or made generally available to municipal entities, obligated persons, municipal advisory clients or the public, including any notice, circular, report, market letter, form letter, telemarketing script, seminar text, press release concerning the services of the municipal advisor or the engagement of a municipal advisory client (as
In addition, similar to proposed amended Rule G-21(a)(i), proposed Rule G-40(a)(i) would exclude certain types of documents from the definition of advertisement. The documents that would be excluded would be preliminary official statements, official statements, preliminary prospectuses, prospectuses, summary prospectuses or registration statements. These exclusions recognize the differences between the role of a dealer under Rule G-21 and the role of a solicitor municipal advisor under proposed Rule G-40. Nonetheless, as with Rule G-21, an abstract or summary of those documents or other such similar documents prepared by the municipal advisor would be considered an advertisement.
For example, a municipal advisor may assist with the preparation of an official statement. An official statement would be excluded from the definition of an advertisement. As such, under proposed Rule G-40(a)(i), the municipal advisor that assists with the preparation of an official statement generally would not be assisting with an advertisement and the municipal advisor's work on the official statement generally would not be subject to the requirements of proposed Rule G-40.
Similar to proposed amended Rule G-21, proposed Rule G-40 would include Supplementary Material .01 to clarify the number of “persons” for a response to an RFP, RFQ or similar request, when used in the context of a form letter under proposed Rule G-40(a)(ii), is determined at the entity level. Therefore, for example, if a municipal advisor were to respond to an RFP from Big City Water Authority, Big City Water Authority would count as one person, no matter how many persons employed by Big City Water Authority reviewed the municipal advisor's response to the RFP.
Proposed Rule G-40(a)(iv) sets forth content standards for advertisements. Those content standards would be substantially similar in all material respects to the content standards set forth in proposed amended Rule G-21. Nonetheless, proposed Rule G-40 would replace certain terms used in proposed amended Rule G-21 with terms more applicable to municipal advisors. The MSRB believes that incorporating content standards for advertisements into proposed Rule G-40 would ensure consistent regulation between regulated entities in the municipal securities market, as well as promote regulatory consistency between dealer municipal advisors and non-dealer municipal advisors.
Specifically, proposed Rule G-40 would require that:
• An advertisement be based on the principles of fair dealing and good faith, be fair and balanced and provide a sound basis for evaluating the municipal security or type of municipal security, municipal financial product, industry, or service and that a municipal advisor not omit any material fact or qualification if such omission, in light of the context presented, would cause the advertisement to be misleading;
• an advertisement not contain any false, exaggerated, unwarranted, promissory or misleading statement or claim;
• a municipal advisor limit the types of information placed in a legend or footnote of an advertisement so as to not inhibit a municipal advisory client's or potential municipal advisory client's understanding of the advertisement;
• an advertisement provide statements that are clear and not misleading within the context that they are made, that the advertisement provides a balanced treatment of risks and potential benefits, and that the advertisement is consistent with the risks inherent to the municipal financial product or the issuance of the municipal security;
• a municipal advisor consider the audience to which the advertisement will be directed and that the advertisement provide details and explanations appropriate to that audience;
• an advertisement not predict or project performance, imply that past performance will recur or make any exaggerated or unwarranted claim, opinion or forecast;
(1) A hypothetical illustration of mathematical principles, provided that it does not predict or project the performance of a municipal financial product; and
(2) An investment analysis tool, or a written report produced by an investment analysis tool.
• an advertisement not refer, directly or indirectly, to any testimonial of any kind concerning the municipal advisor or concerning the advice, analysis, report or other service of the municipal advisor.
However, unlike proposed amended Rule G-21, proposed Rule G-40 would prohibit a municipal advisor from using a testimonial in an advertisement. This prohibition is based in part on the fiduciary duty that a non-solicitor municipal advisor (as opposed to a dealer) owes its municipal entity clients. The MSRB notes that investment advisers also are subject to fiduciary duty standards.
Similar to the concerns that the Commission has expressed about an
However, since the rule's adoption, the SEC staff has granted no-action relief on multiple occasions to permit certain communications to be used without those communications being considered testimonials.
Apart from the content standards discussed above, proposed Rule G-40(a)(iv)(H), similar to proposed amended Rule G-21(a)(iii)(H), also would expand upon the guidance provided by Rule A-12, on registration. Rule A-12(e) permits a municipal advisor to state that it is MSRB registered in its advertising, including on its website. Proposed Rule G-40(a)(iv)(H) would continue to permit a municipal advisor to state that it is MSRB registered. However, proposed Rule G-40(a)(iv)(H) would provide that a municipal advisor shall only state in an advertisement that it is MSRB registered as long as, among other things, the advertisement complies with the applicable standards of all other MSRB rules and neither states nor implies that the MSRB endorses, indemnifies, or guarantees the municipal advisor's business practices, services, skills, or any specific municipal security or municipal financial product.
Proposed Rule G-40(a)(v) would set forth a general standard with which a municipal advisor must comply for advertisements. That standard would require, in part, that a municipal advisor not publish or disseminate, or cause to be published or disseminated, any advertisement relating to municipal securities or municipal financial products that the municipal advisor knows or has reason to know contains any untrue statement of material fact or is otherwise false or misleading. The MSRB believes that the knowledge standard as the general standard for advertisements is appropriate. Thus, proposed Rule G-40 is similar to proposed amended Rule G-21(a)(iv) in all material respects, except proposed Rule G-40 substitutes “municipal advisor” for the term “dealer” and, consistent with Section 15B(e)(4) of the Exchange Act,
Proposed Rule G-40(b) would define the term “professional advertisement,” and would provide the standard for such advertisements. As defined in proposed Rule G-40(b)(i), a professional advertisement would be an advertisement “concerning the facilities, services or skills with respect to the municipal advisory activities of the municipal advisor or of another municipal advisor.” Proposed Rule G-40(b)(ii) would provide, in part, that a municipal advisor shall not publish or disseminate any professional advertisement that contains any untrue statement of material fact or is otherwise false or misleading.
The strict liability standard for professional advertisements in proposed Rule G-40(b)(ii) is consistent with the MSRB's long-standing belief that a regulated entity should be strictly liable for an advertisement about its facilities, skills, or services, and that a knowledge standard is not appropriate.
Proposed Rule G-40(c) would require that each advertisement that is subject to proposed Rule G-40 be approved in writing by a municipal advisor principal before its first use.
a natural person associated with a municipal advisor who is qualified as a municipal advisor representative and is directly engaged in the management, direction or supervision of the municipal advisory activities of the municipal advisor and its associated persons.
Proposed Rule G-40 would omit the provisions set forth in Rule G-21 regarding product advertisements, new issue product advertisements, and municipal fund security product advertisements. The MSRB believes, at this juncture, that municipal advisors most likely do not prepare such advertisements as the MSRB understands that municipal advisors
Section 15B(b)(2) of the Exchange Act
[t]he Board shall propose and adopt rules to effect the purposes of this title with respect to transactions in municipal securities effected by brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers and advice provided to or on behalf of municipal entities or obligated persons by brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers, and municipal advisors with respect to municipal financial products, the issuance of municipal securities, and solicitations of municipal entities or obligated persons undertaken by brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers, and municipal advisors.
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act
The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Sections 15B(b)(2)
The MSRB believes proposed amended Rule G-21, by design, would help prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices. Proposed amended Rule G-21 would require that advertisements be based on the principles of fair dealing and good faith, be fair and balanced, and provide a sound basis for evaluating the facts. A dealer would not be able to omit any material fact or qualification, if the omission, in light of the context of the material presented, would cause the advertisement to be misleading. Furthermore, dealers would be prohibited from making any false, exaggerated, unwarranted, promissory or misleading statement or claim in an advertisement. Dealers would be required to ensure that the statements that they make are clear and not misleading within the context in which they are made and that they provide a balanced treatment of risks and potential benefits. Dealers also would be limited in the types of information that could be placed in a legend or footnote in an advertisement, and dealers only could include a testimonial in an advertisement if certain conditions are met. Dealers would have to consider the nature of the audience to which the advertisement would be directed and would have to provide details and explanations appropriate to the audience. Further, dealers would be prohibited from indicating registration with the MSRB in an advertisement unless the advertisement complies with the applicable standards of all other Board rules and that neither states nor implies that the MSRB endorses dealer's business practices, selling methods, class or type of security offered or any specific security. The prescriptive nature of proposed amended Rule G-21 would provide clear guidelines for dealers to follow that would help prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices.
Moreover, because proposed amended Rule G-21 would promote regulatory consistency with certain of FINRA Rule 2210's content standards, standards to which many dealers are currently subject as FINRA member firms, dealers may more easily understand and comply with proposed amended Rule G-21. In turn, this compliance would help prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices because the requirements of proposed amended Rule G-21 (noted in the paragraph above) are in and of themselves designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices.
Finally, proposed amended Rule G-21 would help prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices because it would promote more efficient inspections of dealer advertisements. Other financial regulators inspect and enforce the MSRB's rules. Proposed amended Rule G-21 would provide clear guidelines as to the content of what may appear in an advertisement which should facilitate an efficient inspection. Further, because Rule G-21 would help promote regulatory consistency with certain of FINRA Rule 2210's content standards, inspections staff may be well familiar with the proposed amended Rule G-21's requirements.
Proposed amended Rule G-21, also would help promote just and equitable principles of trade, and would enhance the MSRB's fair dealing requirements. For the same reasons that the design of proposed amended Rule G-21 would help prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices, the prescriptive nature of the design of proposed amended Rule G-21 would provide clear guidelines for dealers to follow that would help promote just and equitable principles of trade.
Proposed amended Rule G-21 also would help protect investors and the public interest. For the same reasons that the design of proposed amended Rule G-21 would help prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices and promote just and equitable principles of trade, the clear, prescriptive requirements of proposed amended Rule G-21 would help ensure that advertisements would present a fair statement of the services, products, or municipal securities advertised. In turn, investors and the public would be able to have more confidence in the accuracy of the services, products, or municipal securities advertised, and perhaps would be more comfortable making decisions based on an advertisement. For municipal entities, for example, this increased confidence in an advertisement may lead to a more efficient underwriter selection process.
Proposed Rule G-40, by design, would help prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices. Proposed Rule G-40 would require that advertisements be based on the principles of fair dealing and good faith, be fair and balanced, and provide a sound basis for evaluating the facts. No municipal advisor would be able to omit any material fact or qualification if the
Proposed Rule G-40 also would help prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices because proposed Rule G-40 would promote efficient inspections of municipal advisor advertisements. Other financial regulators inspect and enforce the MSRB's rules. Proposed Rule G-40 would provide clear guidelines as to the content of what may appear in an advertisement which should facilitate an efficient inspection of municipal advisor advertisements. More efficient inspections of municipal advisor advertisements, in turn, might result in inspections staff being able to more easily and readily determine whether there are any regulatory irregularities earlier during the inspection process.
Proposed Rule G-40 also would help promote just and equitable principles of trade. Proposed Rule G-40 would enhance the MSRB's fair dealing requirements by, for the first time, having specific requirements for municipal advisor advertising. As such, proposed Rule G-40 would promote regulatory consistency in the municipal securities market, and thus would help promote just and equitable principles of trade. Further, for the same reasons that the design of proposed Rule G-40 would help prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices, proposed Rule G-40's prescriptive and clear guidelines would help promote just and equitable principles of trade.
Proposed Rule G-40, also would help protect investors, municipal entities, obligated persons and the public interest. For the same reasons that the design of proposed Rule G-40 would help prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices and promote just and equitable principles of trade, the clear, prescriptive requirements of proposed Rule G-40 would help ensure that advertisements would present a fair statement of the municipal security or type of municipal security, municipal financial product, industry or service advertised. This, in turn, would help protect investors, municipal entities, obligated persons and the public interest. Further, investors, municipal entities, obligated persons and the public would be able to have more confidence in the accuracy of the advertisements, and perhaps would be more comfortable making decisions based, in part, on an advertisement.
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act
The MSRB believes that, through promoting regulatory consistency of certain MSRB advertising standards with those of other financial regulators, proposed amended Rule G-21 may improve efficiency in the form of less unnecessary complexity for dealers and reduced burdens and compliance costs over time since additional regulatory consistency should assist dealers with developing uniform policies and procedures. This may also benefit both retail and institutional investors, where transparency, consistency, truthful and accurate information and ease of comparison of different financial services would be highly valued. The alternative of leaving Rule G-21 in its current state would mean that dealers that are registered both with the MSRB and FINRA would continue to face two sets of compliance requirements with additional costs and regulatory burdens.
Since proposed amended Rule G-21 would establish more stringent and prescriptive advertising standards for dealers than are included in the baseline, which is current existing Rule G-21, the MSRB expects that dealers may experience increased costs because of the new requirements, especially for bank dealers that are not currently registered with FINRA.
On balance, the MSRB believes that proposed amended Rule G-21 would not impose an unreasonable burden on dealers, and the likely benefits, such as reduced unnecessary complexity and compliance standards that are more closely aligned with those of other financial regulators, would justify the associated costs in both the near and long term.
Since dealers currently are subject to advertising standards under the MSRB's rules, the MSRB believes that proposed amended Rule G-21 is unlikely to hinder capital formation. The MSRB
Similar to Rule G-21, proposed Rule G-40 would be a core fair practice rule governing advertising by municipal advisors. As such, proposed Rule G-40 would help protect investors, municipal entities, obligated persons and the general public. Moreover, proposed Rule G-40 would help ensure consistent regulation between regulated entities in the municipal securities market as well as to promote regulatory consistency among dealer municipal advisors, non-dealer municipal advisors and municipal advisors that are also registered as investment advisers with the SEC.
The MSRB believes that one benefit of proposed Rule G-40 may be more accurate information available to clients through advertising by municipal advisors, which, at the margin, may lead to more informed decision-making related to municipal advisor selection.
The MSRB believes that much of the costs associated with proposed Rule G-40 would be up-front sunk costs resulting from investments in advertisements previously developed by municipal advisors that would no longer be compliant upon effectiveness of the proposed rule,
The MSRB believes these costs should not be burdensome for small municipal advisory firms. For some one-time initial compliance costs, the MSRB believes that small municipal advisory firms may incur proportionally larger costs than larger firms. However, for many other ongoing costs, such as costs associated with principal approval and record-keeping requirements, as well as sunk investments in advertisements previously developed but that would no longer be compliant, the costs should be proportionate to the size of the firm, assuming that small firms generally advertise less than larger firms. Thus, it is unlikely that proposed Rule G-40 would have an outsized impact on small firms.
On balance, the MSRB believes that proposed Rule G-40 would not impose an unreasonable burden on municipal advisors,
The MSRB considered that the costs associated with proposed Rule G-40 may lead some municipal advisors to curtail their advertising expenditures and compete less aggressively through advertising.
The MSRB believes that proposed Rule G-40 should not hinder capital formation. As noted above, the better-quality information conveyed by municipal advisors through advertising that meets the standards of proposed Rule G-40 may lead to an improved municipal advisor selection process (as discussed above). One commenter noted that municipal advisors are typically selected through an RFP process rather than via advertising. However, if firms gained no advantage from advertising, it would be irrational and not in their best interest to advertise. Thus, the MSRB expects that advertising can influence the municipal advisor selection process even if only to raise awareness of a firm. If a final municipal advisor selection is determined exclusively via an RFP process, truthful and accurate advertising still could help issuers target
Finally, transparency, consistency, truthful and accurate information in advertising may increase the willingness of municipal entities and obligated persons to use municipal advisors.
The MSRB sought public comment on the draft amendments to Rule G-21 and new draft Rule G-40.
During the period in which the MSRB considered the comments received in response to the Request for Comment, the Board concluded to separately propose the amendments to Rule G-21(e). The SEC approved those amendments on August 18, 2017, and the amendments became effective on November 18, 2017.
Below, the MSRB discusses the comments received relating to proposed amended Rule G-21. Following that discussion, the MSRB discusses the comments received relating to proposed Rule G-40.
The MSRB received five comment letters that focused on the draft amendments to Rule G-21 (other than Rule G-21(e)).
Commenters supported the draft amendment's harmonization with FINRA Rule 2210. In fact, FSI provided its strong support for the draft amendments to Rule G-21, as drafted.
BDA, SIFMA, and 3PM suggested that the MSRB further harmonize Rule G-21 with FINRA Rule 2210 by adopting FINRA Rule 2210's definition of “communications” and the distinctions in the rule that follow from that definition. In particular, commenters favored the harmonization with FINRA Rule 2210's communications definition because institutional communications would no longer be subject to pre-approval by a principal. BDA, SIFMA, and 3PM submitted that, if the MSRB were to do so, dealers then could apply common approval processes for institutional communications across all asset classes.
BDA stated that, if the MSRB has a rule that applies different definitions and different sets of responsibilities and does not differentiate between communications sent to retail and institutional customers, the MSRB will have created an increased regulatory burden along with considerable confusion for broker-dealers. While the MSRB appreciates BDA's concerns, Rule G-21 currently applies different standards and responsibilities than what is currently required by FINRA Rule 2210. For example, Rule G-21 currently requires pre-approval by a principal of all advertisements, including advertisements that would be considered institutional communications under FINRA Rule 2210. Other than permitting testimonials in advertisements subject to certain conditions, the MSRB has determined not to revise the draft amendments to Rule G-21 to reflect BDA's suggestion that the MSRB more fully harmonize Rule G-21 with FINRA Rule 2210.
However, FINRA's regulation of advertising differs significantly from the MSRB's advertising regulation. FINRA Rule 2210 defines “communications” as consisting of correspondence, retail communications, and institutional communications.
Moreover, the MSRB, unlike FINRA, does not require the filing of advertisements with the MSRB before first use and the MSRB does not review advertisements. Rather, and since the MSRB approved its advertising rules in 1978,
BDA, Fidelity, SIFMA, and Wells Fargo urged the Board to permit testimonials in dealer advertising to better harmonize Rule G-21 with FINRA Rule 2210.
(A) If any testimonial in a communication concerns a technical aspect of investing, the person making the testimonial must have the knowledge and experience to form a valid opinion.
(B) Retail communications or correspondence providing any testimonial concerning the investment advice or investment performance of a member or its products must prominently disclose the following:
(i) The fact that the testimonial may not be representative of the experience of other customers.
(ii) The fact that the testimonial is no guarantee of future performance or success.
(iii) If more than $100 in value is paid for the testimonial, the fact that it is a paid testimonial.
SIFMA commented that, while it supported the MSRB's efforts to level the playing field between dealers and municipal advisors, the better way to level that playing field, as well as to promote harmonization with FINRA's rules, is for the Board to incorporate FINRA Rule 2210 by reference into the MSRB's rules.
Nevertheless, SIFMA did not propose that the MSRB incorporate FINRA Rule 2210 in its entirety by reference into Rule G-21. Rather, SIFMA submitted that certain provisions of FINRA Rule 2210(c) relating to the filing of advertisements with FINRA and the review procedures for those advertisements were unnecessary and burdensome and should not be included. Similarly, SIFMA proposed that provisions in FINRA Rule 2210(e) relating to the limitations on the use of FINRA's name and any other corporate name owned by FINRA be exempted from the incorporation by reference of FINRA Rule 2210 into Rule G-21.
Further, SIFMA recognized that there may be a need for certain MSRB regulation of dealer and municipal advisor advertising. SIFMA stated that “[w]ith respect to advertising or public communications for most municipal securities products (except for municipal advisory business and municipal fund securities), we feel there is no compelling reason to establish a different rule set than that which exists under FINRA Rule 2210.”
As discussed under “Background” above, Rule G-21 is one of the MSRB's core fair practice rules that has been in effect since 1978. In proposing those rules, the MSRB stated the purpose of the fair practice rules “is to codify basic standards of fair and ethical business conduct for municipal securities professionals.”
BDA suggested that the definitions of standards for product advertisements and professional advertisements were made redundant by the general and content standards in the draft amendments to Rule G-21 and draft Rule G-40, and that the provisions should be deleted to signify that these types of communications are covered by the draft amendments to Rule G-21 and draft Rule G-40.
Commenters suggested additional exclusions from the definition of an advertisement. Those exclusions related to private placement memoranda
BDA and SIFMA suggested that as part of its harmonization effort, the MSRB should exclude private placement memoranda from the definition of advertisement.
The MSRB believes, however, that such an exclusion would cause disharmonization with FINRA Rule 2210. FINRA Rule 2210 does not provide a similar exclusion from the definition of a communication. After careful consideration, the Board determined not to revise the draft amendments to Rule G-21 to reflect commenters' suggestion.
BDA and SIFMA commented that the Board should amend Rule G-21 (Acacia, BDA, SIFMA, NAMA and PFM also made similar comments with respect to draft Rule G-40) to exclude a response to an RFP or RFQ from the definition of advertisement.
To ensure that the definition of form letter is interpreted as intended, the proposed rule change includes Supplementary Material .03 to Rule G-21 and Supplementary Material .01 to proposed Rule G-40. This supplementary material explains that an entity that receives a response to an RFP, RFQ or similar request would count as one “person” for the purposes of the definition of a form letter no matter the number of employees of the entity who may review the response. Other than the supplementary material, the Board determined that no other revisions to the draft amendments to Rule G-21 or to draft Rule G-40 were necessary to address commenters' concerns about RFPs and RFQs.
The Request for Comment noted that FINRA had recently requested comment on draft amendments to FINRA Rule 2210 to create an exception to the rule's prohibition on projecting performance to permit a firm to distribute a customized hypothetical investment planning illustration that includes the projected performance of an investment strategy. In part, in the interest of potential harmonization, the MSRB asked whether it should consider a similar proposal. Fidelity, SIFMA, and Wells Fargo commented that the MSRB should include a similar exception in the draft amendments to Rule G-21 and in draft Rule G-40.
The comment period on FINRA's draft amendments to FINRA Rule 2210 closed March 27, 2017, and FINRA is still considering the comments that it received.
The amendments to Rule G-21(e), effective November 18, 2017, clarify that a hyperlink can be used for an investor to obtain more current municipal fund security performance information. Fidelity suggested that the MSRB expand the use of hyperlinks more broadly and in other advertising contexts outside of municipal fund security performance advertisements.
Fidelity encouraged the MSRB to review existing and upcoming FINRA guidance concerning communications with the public and to engage with FINRA directly during the rulemaking process.
Commenters suggested that the MSRB provide guidance and/or exemptions from Rule G-21 for dealer/municipal advisors. Specifically, SIFMA suggested that the MSRB amend Rule G-21 to clarify that the activities of dealer/municipal advisors are governed by draft Rule G-40 when those dealer/municipal advisors are engaging in municipal advisor advertising.
The MSRB received five comment letters that focused on draft Rule G-40.
Seeming to rely on the fiduciary duty requirements imposed on certain municipal advisors as well as the fair dealing requirements imposed on all municipal advisors, Acacia, Lewis Young, and NAMA submitted that the protections offered by Rule G-17 provide sufficient investor protection from misleading statements such that draft Rule G-40 is not necessary.
Lewis Young also suggested that “an alternative would be a principles based `truth in advertising' version of G-40 which could be written in one or two sentences. Rule G-21 could be correspondingly simplified.”
To rely on Rule G-17 to regulate municipal advisor advertising would create an unlevel playing field. This unlevel playing field would be between municipal advisors (subject to Rule G-17, but not Rule G-21) and dealers (subject to both Rules G-17 and G-21) and among municipal advisors that are not registered as dealers and municipal advisors that are also registered as dealers or investment advisers (subject to Rule G-21 and FINRA Rule 2210 or Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-1, as relevant).
Further, Rule G-42 applies only to non-solicitor municipal advisors; Rule G-42 excludes solicitor municipal advisors from the rule's scope. Lewis Young's comments fail to address how reliance on Rule G-42 would address advertising by solicitor municipal advisors that are not subject to Rule G-42. Moreover, other commenters submitted that having a separate rule to address advertising by municipal advisors would be helpful.
After careful consideration, the MSRB determined to address advertising by municipal advisors through proposed Rule G-40.
3PM provided a “technical interpretation of the definition of `municipal advisory client'” and suggested that the protections that would be provided by draft Rule G-40 may not be broad enough to protect municipal entities and obligated persons when they are solicited on behalf of third-parties by municipal
Rule 15Ba1-1(d)(1)(ii) under the Exchange Act excludes the provision of general information from the type of advice that would require a municipal advisor to register with the SEC.
(a) Information regarding a person's professional qualifications and prior experience (
Registration of Municipal Advisors Frequently Asked Questions, Office of Municipal Securities, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, last updated on May 19, 2014, available at
The purpose of draft Rule G-40, in part, is to ensure that municipal advisor advertising does not contain any untrue statement of material fact and is not otherwise false or misleading. Regardless of whether certain information rises to the level of advice, that information may be advertising used to market to potential clients, which the MSRB believes should be covered by draft Rule G-40. Further, as noted by FSI, maintaining regulatory consistency between draft Rule G-40 and the draft amendments to Rule G-21 is important.
NAMA, PFM and 3PM generally requested that draft Rule G-40 be revised to provide more definitive content standards.
The Board appreciates and considered commenters' suggestions. With regard to the suggestions about refining draft Rule G-40's content standards, the MSRB believes that those content standards are clear as drafted. Moreover, as the MSRB's regulatory regime relating to municipal advisors is not yet complete, the MSRB believes that, at this point, having different content standards based on the type of advertisement by the municipal advisor would not be warranted.
The MSRB sought comment about whether the MSRB should provide guidance about municipal advisors that market non-security products, such as software programs, to their municipal advisory clients. Commenters generally responded that such guidance may be helpful, but generally either did not provide further information or cautioned that there should be a nexus between the product advertisement and municipal advisory activity for draft Rule G-40 to apply.
The MSRB agrees that there should be a nexus between the product advertisement and the municipal advisory activity for proposed Rule G-40 to apply. The MSRB believes that when a municipal advisor publishes an advertisement about its municipal advisory services and that advertisement also markets a non-municipal security product that is related to the municipal advisory services, the municipal advisor should consider whether the entire advertisement and not just the portion of the advertisement addressing municipal advisory services, is consistent with all MSRB rules, including Rule G-17, proposed Rule G-40, Rule G-42 and Rule G-8, on books and records to be made by brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers and municipal advisors.
BDA, NAMA, PFM, SIFMA, 3PM and Wells Fargo commented on draft Rule G-40(iv)(G) that would prohibit a municipal advisor from using testimonials in its advertisements.
Specifically, BDA stated that the “MSRB's prohibition on testimonials in . . . Rule G-40 is [not] warranted.”
NAMA, PFM and Wells Fargo stated that, if draft Rule G-40 were to prohibit testimonials by municipal advisors, the MSRB should provide relief from that prohibition. Commenters suggested that the MSRB narrow that prohibition either by adopting the SEC staff's definition of a testimonial that is applicable to investment advisers,
The Board considered commenters' suggestions, and recognizes the interpretive guidance provided by the SEC staff relating to testimonials.
Further, although the MSRB appreciates commenters' suggestions, the guidance related to the testimonial ban under the Advisers Act rule is SEC staff guidance, not guidance issued by the Commission.
BDA argued that principal pre-approval was not needed or could be limited to certain types of advertisements.
An important part of the MSRB's mission is to protect state and local governments and other municipal entities. It is, in part, because of that mission that the MSRB developed draft Rule G-40. The MSRB has long believed that principal pre-approval of advertisements is an essential part of an effective supervisory process.
Commenters requested more specific guidance about the content posted on a municipal advisor's website and about the use of social media by a municipal advisor. In particular, Acacia, NAMA, and PFM requested guidance about whether material posted on a municipal advisor's website would constitute an advertisement under proposed Rule G-40.
In addition, NAMA and PFM requested guidance on the use of social media.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to provide Users with access to two additional third party systems and connectivity to one additional third party data feed. In addition, the Exchange proposes to change its Price List related to these co-location services, and to update its Price List to eliminate obsolete text. 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 the co-location
As set forth in the Price List, the Exchange charges fees for connectivity to the execution systems of third party markets and other content service providers (“Third Party Systems”), and data feeds from third party markets and other content service providers (“Third Party Data Feeds”).
The Exchange now proposes to make the following changes:
• Add two content service providers to the list of Third Party Systems: Miami International Securities Exchange and MIAX PEARL (together, the “Additional Third Party Systems”); and
• add one feed to the list of Third Party Data Feeds: Miami International Securities Exchange/MIAX PEARL (the “Additional Third Party Data Feed”).
The Exchange would provide access to the Additional Third Party Systems (“Access”) and connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed (“Connectivity”) as conveniences to Users. Use of Access or Connectivity would be completely voluntary. The Exchange is not aware of any impediment to third parties offering Access or Connectivity.
The Exchange does not have visibility into whether third parties currently offer, or intend to offer, Users access to the Additional Third Party Systems and connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed, as such third parties are not required to make that information public. However, if one or more third parties presently offer, or in the future opt to offer, such Access and Connectivity to Users, a User may utilize the Secure Financial Transaction Infrastructure (“SFTI”) network, a third party telecommunication network, third party wireless network, a cross connect, or a combination thereof to access such services and products through a connection to an access center outside the data center (which could be a SFTI access center, a third-party access center, or both), another User, or a third party vendor.
The proposed rule change would become operative when the Additional Third Party Systems and the Additional Third Party Data Feed becomes available, which is expected to be no later than March 31, 2018. The Exchange will announce the dates that each Product is available through customer notices disseminated to all Users simultaneously.
The Exchange proposes to revise the Price List to provide that Users may obtain connectivity to the two Additional Third Party Systems for a fee. As with the current Third Party Systems, Users would connect to the Additional Third Party Systems over the internet protocol (“IP”) network, a local area network available in the data center.
As with the current Third Party Systems, in order to obtain access to an Additional Third Party System, the User would enter into an agreement with the relevant third party content service provider, pursuant to which the third party content service provider would charge the User for access to the Additional Third Party System. The Exchange would then establish a unicast connection between the User and the relevant third party content service provider over the IP network.
The Exchange has no ownership interest in the Additional Third Party Systems. Establishing a User's access to an Additional Third Party System would not give the Exchange any right to use the Additional Third Party Systems. Connectivity to an Additional Third Party System would not provide access or order entry to the Exchange's execution system, and a User's connection to an Additional Third Party System would not be through the Exchange's execution system.
As with the existing connections to Third Party Systems, the Exchange proposes to charge a monthly recurring fee for connectivity to an Additional Third Party System. Specifically, when a User requests access to an Additional Third Party System, it would identify the applicable content service provider and what bandwidth connection it required.
The Exchange proposes to modify its Price List to add the Additional Third Party Systems to its existing list of Third Party Systems. The additional items would be as follows:
The Exchange does not propose to change the monthly recurring fee the Exchange charges Users for unicast connectivity to each Third Party System, including the Additional Third Party Systems.
The Exchange proposes to revise the Price List to provide that Users may obtain connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed for a fee. The Exchange would receive the Additional Third Party Data Feed from the content service provider, at its data center. It would then provide connectivity to that data to Users for a fee. Users would connect to the Additional Third Party Data Feed over the IP network.
In order to connect to the Additional Third Party Data Feed, a User would enter into a contract with the content service provider, pursuant to which the content service provider would charge the User for the Third Party Data Feed. The Exchange would receive the Third Party Data Feed over its fiber optic network and, after the content service provider and User entered into the contract and the Exchange received authorization from the content service provider, the Exchange would re-transmit the data to the User over the User's port. The Exchange would charge the User for the connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed. A User would only receive, and would only be charged for, connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed for which it entered into contracts.
The Exchange has no affiliation with the seller of the Additional Third Party Data Feed. It would have no right to use the Additional Third Party Data Feed other than as a redistributor of the data. The Additional Third Party Data Feed would not provide access or order entry to the Exchange's execution system. The Additional Third Party Data Feed would not provide access or order entry to the execution systems of the third parties generating the feed. The Exchange would receive the Additional Third Party Data Feed via arms-length agreements and it would have no inherent advantage over any other distributor of such data.
As it does with the existing Third Party Data Feeds, the Exchange proposes to charge a monthly recurring fee for connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed. Depending on its needs and bandwidth, a User may opt to receive all or some of the feeds or services included in the Additional Third Party Data Feed.
The Exchange proposes to add the connectivity fees for the Additional Third Party Data to its existing list in the Price List. The additional item would be as follows:
The Exchange proposes to delete obsolete text from both the lists of Third Party Data Feeds and Third Party Systems in the Price List. More specifically, the Exchange proposes to make the following changes:
• From both lists, remove the asterisk and note stating that the asterisked service is expected to be available no later than September 30, 2017, as the relevant services are currently available; and
• from the list of Third Party Data Feeds, remove the asterisks and note stating that the Euronext Optiq Compressed Derivatives is expected to be offered in place of Euronext no later than September 30, 2017, as such change has occurred, and remove Euronext as a Third Party Data Feed.
This proposed change would have no impact on pricing.
As is the case with all Exchange co-location arrangements, (i) neither a User nor any of the User's customers would be permitted to submit orders directly to the Exchange unless such User or customer is a member organization, a Sponsored Participant or an agent thereof (
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because, by offering additional services, the Exchange would give each User additional options for addressing its access and connectivity needs, responding to User demand for access and connectivity options. Providing additional services would help each User tailor its data center operations to the requirements of its business operations by allowing it to select the form and latency of access and connectivity that best suits its needs.
The Exchange would provide Access and Connectivity as conveniences to Users. Use of Access or Connectivity would be completely voluntary. The Exchange is not aware of any impediment to third parties offering Access or Connectivity. The Exchange does not have visibility into whether third parties currently offer, or intend to offer, Users access to the Additional Third Party Systems and connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed. However, if one or more third parties presently offer, or in the future opt to offer, such Access and Connectivity to Users, a User may utilize the SFTI network, a third party telecommunication network, third party wireless network, a cross connect, or a combination thereof to access such services and products through a connection to an access center outside the data center (which could be a SFTI access center, a third-party access center, or both), another User, or a third party vendor.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in
The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act for multiple reasons. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations. Accordingly, fees charged for co-location services are constrained by the active competition for the order flow of, and other business from, such market participants. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for co-location services, affected market participants will opt to terminate their co-location arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of alternative strategies, including placing their servers in a physically proximate location outside the exchange's data center (which could be a competing exchange), or pursuing strategies less dependent upon the lower exchange-to-participant latency associated with co-location. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only co-location revenues but also the liquidity of the formerly co-located trading firms, which could have additional follow-on effects on the market share and revenue of the affected exchange.
The Exchange believes that the additional services and fees proposed herein would be equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because, in addition to the services being completely voluntary, they would be available to all Users on an equal basis (
The Exchange believes that the proposed charges would be reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would offer the Access and Connectivity as conveniences to Users, but in order to do so must provide, maintain and operate the data center facility hardware and technology infrastructure. The Exchange must handle the installation, administration, monitoring, support and maintenance of such services, including by responding to any production issues. Since the inception of co-location, the Exchange has made numerous improvements to the network hardware and technology infrastructure and has established additional administrative controls. The Exchange has expanded the network infrastructure to keep pace with the increased number of services available to Users, including resilient and redundant feeds. In addition, in order to provide Access and Connectivity, the Exchange would maintain multiple connections to each Additional Third Party Data Feed and Additional Third Party System, allowing the Exchange to provide resilient and redundant connections; adapt to any changes made by the relevant third party; and cover any applicable fees charged by the relevant third party, such as port fees. In addition, Users would not be required to use any of their bandwidth for Access and Connectivity unless they wish to do so.
The Exchange believes the proposed fees for Access and Connectivity would be reasonable because they would allow the Exchange to defray or cover the costs associated with offering Users access to Additional Third Party Systems and connectivity to Additional Third Party Data Feed while providing Users the convenience of receiving such Access and Connectivity within co-location, helping them tailor their data center operations to the requirements of their business operations.
The Exchange also believes that the proposal to delete obsolete text from the list of Third Party Data Feeds and the list of Third Party Systems would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because the proposed fee changes would remove obsolete text from the Price List, reducing the complexity and any potential ambiguity and providing clarification concerning the availability and the costs of products and services available to Users. Further, the Exchange believes that that the proposed modifications and updates to its Price List would be consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors because the public and investors would not be harmed and, in fact, would benefit from this updating and clarification.
For the reasons above, the proposed changes would not unfairly discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements, terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that providing Users with additional options for connectivity and access to new services would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because such proposed Access and Connectivity would satisfy User demand for access and connectivity options. The Exchange would provide Access and Connectivity as conveniences equally to all Users. The Exchange does not have visibility into whether third parties currently offer, or intend to offer, Users access to the Additional Third Party Systems and connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed, as such third parties are not required to make that information public. However, if one or more third parties presently offer, or in the future opt to offer, such Access and Connectivity to Users, a User may utilize the SFTI network, a third party telecommunication network, third party wireless network, a cross connect, or a combination thereof to access such services and products through a connection to an access center outside the data center (which could be a SFTI access center, a third-party access center, or both), another User, or a third
The proposed deletion of obsolete text from the list of Third Party Data Feeds and the list of Third Party Systems would update the information and increase the clarity of the Price List concerning the availability and cost of products and services available to Users. Accordingly, the proposed change would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as the public and investors would benefit from this updating and clarification.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations. Accordingly, fees charged for co-location services are constrained by the active competition for the order flow of, and other business from, such market participants. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for co-location services, affected market participants will opt to terminate their co-location arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of alternative strategies, including placing their servers in a physically proximate location outside the exchange's data center (which could be a competing exchange), or pursuing strategies less dependent upon the lower exchange-to-participant latency associated with co-location. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only co-location revenues but also the liquidity of the formerly co-located trading firms, which could have additional follow-on effects on the market share and revenue of the affected exchange. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 21.1 to modify a Time in Force applicable to the Exchange's equity options platform (“EDGX Options”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 21.1, Definitions, to modify the Good Til Day (or “GTD”) Time in Force. Currently, GTD orders are limited to the specific trading day on which they are entered, as the Exchange does not currently offer any orders that continue to remain on the Exchange for more than a single trading day (
The Exchange plans to make available the GTC Time in Force effective January 26, 2018. In connection with such release, the Exchange proposes to modify the GTD Time in Force to also allow orders with such Time in Force to remain in effect past the day on which they were entered, and therefore proposes to remove language that refers to the time of expiration as needing to be “during such trading day”. In addition, to avoid confusion, the Exchange proposes to modify the name of the GTD Time in Force to “Good Til Date”, which is more reflective of a Time in Force that can last for more than one trading day.
The Exchange does not believe that offering GTD functionality that allows orders to remain with the Exchange for more than one trading day raises any issues that are not already present with GTC orders. In turn, GTC is a common time in force and is typically implemented to allow orders to remain for more than one trading day.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is a minor update to an existing Time in Force, GTD, given the update to the Exchange's technology that will allow orders to persist for more than one trading day. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will have any direct impact on competition. Thus, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal creates any significant impact on competition.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to provide Users with access to two additional third party systems and connectivity to one additional third party data feed. In addition, the Exchange proposes to change its NYSE American Equities Price List (“Price List”) and the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) related to these co-location services, and to update its Price List and Fee Schedule to eliminate obsolete text. 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 the co-location
As set forth in the Price List and Fee Schedule, the Exchange charges fees for connectivity to the execution systems of third party markets and other content service providers (“Third Party Systems”), and data feeds from third party markets and other content service providers (“Third Party Data Feeds”).
The Exchange now proposes to make the following changes:
• Add two content service providers to the list of Third Party Systems: Miami International Securities Exchange and MIAX PEARL (together, the “Additional Third Party Systems” or “ATPS”); and
• add one feed to the list of Third Party Data Feeds: Miami International Securities Exchange/MIAX PEARL (the “Additional Third Party Data Feed” or “ATPD”).
The Exchange would provide access to the Additional Third Party Systems (“Access”) and connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed (“Connectivity”) as conveniences to Users. Use of Access or Connectivity would be completely voluntary. The Exchange is not aware of any impediment to third parties offering Access or Connectivity.
The Exchange does not have visibility into whether third parties currently offer, or intend to offer, Users access to the Additional Third Party Systems and connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed, as such third parties are not required to make that information public. However, if one or more third parties presently offer, or in the future opt to offer, such Access and Connectivity to Users, a User may utilize the Secure Financial Transaction Infrastructure (“SFTI”) network, a third party telecommunication network, third party wireless network, a cross connect, or a combination thereof to access such services and products through a connection to an access center outside the data center (which could be a SFTI access center, a third-party access center, or both), another User, or a third party vendor.
The proposed rule change would become operative when the Additional Third Party Systems and the Additional Third Party Data Feed become available, which is expected to be no later than March 31, 2018. The Exchange will announce the dates that each Product is available through customer notices disseminated to all Users simultaneously.
The Exchange proposes to revise the Price List and Fee Schedule to provide that Users may obtain connectivity to the two Additional Third Party Systems for a fee. As with the current Third Party Systems, Users would connect to the Additional Third Party Systems over the internet protocol (“IP”) network, a local area network available in the data center.
As with the current Third Party Systems, in order to obtain access to an Additional Third Party System, the User would enter into an agreement with the relevant third party content service provider, pursuant to which the third party content service provider would charge the User for access to the Additional Third Party System. The Exchange would then establish a unicast connection between the User and the relevant third party content service provider over the IP network.
The Exchange has no ownership interest in the Additional Third Party Systems. Establishing a User's access to an Additional Third Party System would not give the Exchange any right
As with the existing connections to Third Party Systems, the Exchange proposes to charge a monthly recurring fee for connectivity to an Additional Third Party System. Specifically, when a User requests access to an Additional Third Party System, it would identify the applicable content service provider and what bandwidth connection it required.
The Exchange proposes to modify its Price List and Fee Schedule to add the Additional Third Party Systems to its existing list of Third Party Systems. The additional items would be as follows:
The Exchange does not propose to change the monthly recurring fee the Exchange charges Users for unicast connectivity to each Third Party System, including the Additional Third Party Systems.
The Exchange proposes to revise the Price List and Fee Schedule to provide that Users may obtain connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed for a fee. The Exchange would receive the Additional Third Party Data Feed from the content service provider, at its data center. It would then provide connectivity to that data to Users for a fee. Users would connect to the Additional Third Party Data Feed over the IP network.
In order to connect to the Additional Third Party Data Feed, a User would enter into a contract with the content service provider, pursuant to which the content service provider would charge the User for the Third Party Data Feed. The Exchange would receive the Third Party Data Feed over its fiber optic network and, after the content service provider and User entered into the contract and the Exchange received authorization from the content service provider, the Exchange would re-transmit the data to the User over the User's port. The Exchange would charge the User for the connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed. A User would only receive, and would only be charged for, connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed for which it entered into contracts.
The Exchange has no affiliation with the seller of the Additional Third Party Data Feed. It would have no right to use the Additional Third Party Data Feed other than as a redistributor of the data. The Additional Third Party Data Feed would not provide access or order entry to the Exchange's execution system. The Additional Third Party Data Feed would not provide access or order entry to the execution systems of the third parties generating the feed. The Exchange would receive the Additional Third Party Data Feed via arms-length agreements and it would have no inherent advantage over any other distributor of such data.
As it does with the existing Third Party Data Feeds, the Exchange proposes to charge a monthly recurring fee for connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed. Depending on its needs and bandwidth, a User may opt to receive all or some of the feeds or services included in the Additional Third Party Data Feed.
The Exchange proposes to add the connectivity fees for the Additional Third Party Data to its existing list in the Price List and Fee Schedule. The additional item would be as follows:
The Exchange proposes to delete obsolete text from both the lists of Third Party Data Feeds and Third Party Systems, in both the Price List and Fee Schedule. More specifically, the Exchange proposes to make the following changes:
• From both lists, remove the asterisk and note stating that the asterisked service is expected to be available no later than September 30, 2017, as the relevant services are currently available; and
• from the list of Third Party Data Feeds, remove the asterisks and note stating that the Euronext Optiq Compressed Derivatives is expected to be offered in place of Euronext no later than September 30, 2017, as such change has occurred, and remove Euronext as a Third Party Data Feed.
This proposed change would have no impact on pricing.
As is the case with all Exchange co-location arrangements, (i) neither a User nor any of the User's customers would be permitted to submit orders directly to the Exchange unless such User or customer is a member organization, a Sponsored Participant or an agent thereof (
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because, by offering additional services, the Exchange would give each User additional options for addressing its access and connectivity needs, responding to User demand for access and connectivity options. Providing additional services would help each User tailor its data center operations to the requirements of its business operations by allowing it to select the form and latency of access and connectivity that best suits its needs.
The Exchange would provide Access and Connectivity as conveniences to Users. Use of Access or Connectivity would be completely voluntary. The Exchange is not aware of any impediment to third parties offering Access or Connectivity. The Exchange does not have visibility into whether third parties currently offer, or intend to offer, Users access to the Additional Third Party Systems and connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed. However, if one or more third parties presently offer, or in the future opt to offer, such Access and Connectivity to Users, a User may utilize the SFTI network, a third party telecommunication network, third party wireless network, a cross connect, or a combination thereof to access such services and products through a connection to an access center outside the data center (which could be a SFTI access center, a third-party access center, or both), another User, or a third party vendor.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because, by offering access to the Additional Third Party Systems and connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed to Users when available, the Exchange would give Users additional options for connectivity and access to new services as soon as they are available, responding to User demand for access and connectivity options.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act for multiple reasons. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations. Accordingly, fees charged for co-location services are constrained by the active competition for the order flow of, and other business from, such market participants. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for co-location services, affected market participants will opt to terminate their co-location arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of alternative strategies, including placing their servers in a physically proximate location outside the exchange's data center (which could be a competing exchange), or pursuing strategies less dependent upon the lower exchange-to-participant latency associated with co-location. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only co-location revenues but also the liquidity of the formerly co-located trading firms, which could have additional follow-on effects on the market share and revenue of the affected exchange.
The Exchange believes that the additional services and fees proposed herein would be equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because, in addition to the services being completely voluntary, they would be available to all Users on an equal basis (
The Exchange believes that the proposed charges would be reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would offer the Access and Connectivity as conveniences to Users, but in order to do so must provide, maintain and operate the data center facility hardware and technology infrastructure. The Exchange must handle the installation, administration, monitoring, support and maintenance of such services, including by responding to any production issues. Since the inception of co-location, the Exchange has made numerous improvements to the network hardware and technology infrastructure and has established additional administrative controls. The Exchange has expanded the network infrastructure to keep pace with the increased number of services available to Users, including resilient and redundant feeds. In addition, in order to provide Access and Connectivity, the Exchange would maintain multiple connections to each ATPD and ATPS, allowing the Exchange to provide resilient and redundant connections; adapt to any changes made by the relevant third party; and cover any applicable fees charged by the relevant third party, such as port fees. In addition, Users would not be required to use any of their bandwidth for Access and Connectivity unless they wish to do so.
The Exchange believes the proposed fees for Access and Connectivity would be reasonable because they would allow the Exchange to defray or cover the costs associated with offering Users access to Additional Third Party Systems and connectivity to Additional Third Party Data Feed while providing Users the convenience of receiving such Access and Connectivity within co-location, helping them tailor their data center operations to the requirements of their business operations.
The Exchange also believes that the proposal to delete obsolete text from the list of Third Party Data Feeds and the list of Third Party Systems would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because the proposed fee changes would remove obsolete text from the Price List and Fee Schedule, reducing the complexity and any potential ambiguity and providing clarification concerning the availability and the costs of products and services available to Users. Further, the Exchange believes that that the proposed modifications and updates to its Price List and Fee Schedule would be consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors because the public and investors would not be harmed and, in fact, would benefit from this updating and clarification.
For the reasons above, the proposed changes would not unfairly discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements, terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that providing Users with additional options for connectivity and access to new services would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because such proposed Access and Connectivity would satisfy User demand for access and connectivity options. The Exchange would provide Access and Connectivity as conveniences equally to all Users. The Exchange does not have visibility into whether third parties currently offer, or intend to offer, Users access to the Additional Third Party Systems and connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed, as such third parties are not required to make that information public. However, if one or more third parties presently offer, or in the future opt to offer, such Access and Connectivity to Users, a User may utilize the SFTI network, a third party telecommunication network, third party wireless network, a cross connect, or a combination thereof to access such services and products through a connection to an access center outside the data center (which could be a SFTI access center, a third-party access center, or both), another User, or a third party vendor. Users that opt to use the proposed Access or Connectivity would not receive access or connectivity that is not available to all Users, as all market participants that contract with the content provider may receive access or connectivity. In this way, the proposed changes would enhance competition by helping Users tailor their Access and Connectivity to the needs of their business operations by allowing them to select the form and latency of access and connectivity that best suits their needs.
The proposed deletion of obsolete text from the list of Third Party Data Feeds and the list of Third Party Systems would update the information and increase the clarity of the Price List and Fee Schedule concerning the availability and cost of products and services available to Users. Accordingly, the proposed change would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as the public and investors would benefit from this updating and clarification.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations. Accordingly, fees charged for co-location services are constrained by the active competition for the order flow of, and other business from, such market participants. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for co-location services, affected market participants will opt to terminate their co-location arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of alternative strategies, including placing their servers in a physically proximate location outside the exchange's data center (which could be a competing exchange), or pursuing strategies less dependent upon the lower exchange-to-participant latency associated with co-location. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only co-location revenues but also the liquidity of the formerly co-located trading firms, which could have additional follow-on effects on the market share and revenue of the affected exchange. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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
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 July 28, 2017, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On September 18, 2017, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to provide Users with access to two additional third party systems and connectivity to one additional third party data feed. In addition, the Exchange proposes to change its NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges (the “Options Fee Schedule”) and the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges (the “Equities Fee Schedule” and, together with the Options Fee Schedule, the “Fee Schedules”) related to these co-location services, and to update its Fee Schedules to eliminate obsolete text. 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 the co-location
As set forth in the Fee Schedules, the Exchange charges fees for connectivity to the execution systems of third party markets and other content service providers (“Third Party Systems”), and data feeds from third party markets and other content service providers (“Third Party Data Feeds”).
The Exchange now proposes to make the following changes:
• Add two content service providers to the list of Third Party Systems: Miami International Securities Exchange and MIAX PEARL (together, the “Additional Third Party Systems” or “ATPS”); and
• add one feed to the list of Third Party Data Feeds: Miami International Securities Exchange/MIAX PEARL (the “Additional Third Party Data Feed” or “ATPD”).
The Exchange would provide access to the Additional Third Party Systems (“Access”) and connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed (“Connectivity”) as conveniences to Users. Use of Access or Connectivity would be completely voluntary. The Exchange is not aware of any impediment to third parties offering Access or Connectivity.
The Exchange does not have visibility into whether third parties currently offer, or intend to offer, Users access to the Additional Third Party Systems and connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed, as such third parties are not required to make that information public. However, if one or more third parties presently offer, or in the future opt to offer, such Access and Connectivity to Users, a User may utilize the Secure Financial Transaction Infrastructure (“SFTI”) network, a third party telecommunication network, third party wireless network, a cross connect, or a combination thereof to access such services and products through a connection to an access center outside the data center (which could be a SFTI access center, a third-party access center, or both), another User, or a third party vendor.
The proposed rule change would become operative when the Additional Third Party Systems and the Additional Third Party Data Feed become available, which is expected to be no later than March 31, 2018. The Exchange will announce the dates that each Product is available through customer notices disseminated to all Users simultaneously.
The Exchange proposes to revise the Fee Schedules to provide that Users may obtain connectivity to the two Additional Third Party Systems for a fee. As with the current Third Party Systems, Users would connect to the Additional Third Party Systems over the internet protocol (“IP”) network, a local area network available in the data center.
As with the current Third Party Systems, in order to obtain access to an Additional Third Party System, the User would enter into an agreement with the relevant third party content service provider, pursuant to which the third party content service provider would charge the User for access to the Additional Third Party System. The Exchange would then establish a unicast connection between the User and the
The Exchange has no ownership interest in the Additional Third Party Systems. Establishing a User's access to an Additional Third Party System would not give the Exchange any right to use the Additional Third Party Systems. Connectivity to an Additional Third Party System would not provide access or order entry to the Exchange's execution system, and a User's connection to an Additional Third Party System would not be through the Exchange's execution system.
As with the existing connections to Third Party Systems, the Exchange proposes to charge a monthly recurring fee for connectivity to an Additional Third Party System. Specifically, when a User requests access to an Additional Third Party System, it would identify the applicable content service provider and what bandwidth connection it required.
The Exchange proposes to modify its Fee Schedules to add the Additional Third Party Systems to its existing list of Third Party Systems. The additional items would be as follows:
The Exchange does not propose to change the monthly recurring fee the Exchange charges Users for unicast connectivity to each Third Party System, including the Additional Third Party Systems.
The Exchange proposes to revise the Fee Schedules to provide that Users may obtain connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed for a fee. The Exchange would receive the Additional Third Party Data Feed from the content service provider, at its data center. It would then provide connectivity to that data to Users for a fee. Users would connect to the Additional Third Party Data Feed over the IP network.
In order to connect to the Additional Third Party Data Feed, a User would enter into a contract with the content service provider, pursuant to which the content service provider would charge the User for the Third Party Data Feed. The Exchange would receive the Third Party Data Feed over its fiber optic network and, after the content service provider and User entered into the contract and the Exchange received authorization from the content service provider, the Exchange would re-transmit the data to the User over the User's port. The Exchange would charge the User for the connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed. A User would only receive, and would only be charged for, connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed for which it entered into contracts.
The Exchange has no affiliation with the seller of the Additional Third Party Data Feed. It would have no right to use the Additional Third Party Data Feed other than as a redistributor of the data. The Additional Third Party Data Feed would not provide access or order entry to the Exchange's execution system. The Additional Third Party Data Feed would not provide access or order entry to the execution systems of the third parties generating the feed. The Exchange would receive the Additional Third Party Data Feed via arms-length agreements and it would have no inherent advantage over any other distributor of such data.
As it does with the existing Third Party Data Feeds, the Exchange proposes to charge a monthly recurring fee for connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed. Depending on its needs and bandwidth, a User may opt to receive all or some of the feeds or services included in the Additional Third Party Data Feed.
The Exchange proposes to add the connectivity fees for the Additional Third Party Data to its existing list in the Fee Schedules. The additional item would be as follows:
The Exchange proposes to delete obsolete text from both the lists of Third Party Data Feeds and Third Party Systems in the Fee Schedules. More specifically, the Exchange proposes to make the following changes:
• From both lists, remove the asterisk and note stating that the asterisked service is expected to be available no later than September 30, 2017, as the relevant services are currently available; and
• from the list of Third Party Data Feeds, remove the asterisks and note stating that the Euronext Optiq Compressed Derivatives is expected to be offered in place of Euronext no later than September 30, 2017, as such change has occurred, and remove Euronext as a Third Party Data Feed.
This proposed change would have no impact on pricing.
As is the case with all Exchange co-location arrangements, (i) neither a User nor any of the User's customers would be permitted to submit orders directly to the Exchange unless such User or customer is a member organization, a Sponsored Participant or an agent thereof (
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because, by offering additional services, the Exchange would give each User additional options for addressing its access and connectivity needs, responding to User demand for access and connectivity options. Providing additional services would help each User tailor its data center operations to the requirements of its business operations by allowing it to select the form and latency of access and connectivity that best suits its needs.
The Exchange would provide Access and Connectivity as conveniences to Users. Use of Access or Connectivity would be completely voluntary. The Exchange is not aware of any impediment to third parties offering Access or Connectivity. The Exchange does not have visibility into whether third parties currently offer, or intend to offer, Users access to the Additional Third Party Systems and connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed. However, if one or more third parties presently offer, or in the future opt to offer, such Access and Connectivity to Users, a User may utilize the SFTI network, a third party telecommunication network, third party wireless network, a cross connect, or a combination thereof to access such services and products through a connection to an access center outside the data center (which could be a SFTI access center, a third-party access center, or both), another User, or a third party vendor.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because, by offering access to the Additional Third Party Systems and connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed to Users when available, the Exchange would give Users additional options for connectivity and access to new services as soon as they are available, responding to User demand for access and connectivity options.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act for multiple reasons. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations. Accordingly, fees charged for co-location services are constrained by the active competition for the order flow of, and other business from, such market participants. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for co-location services, affected market participants will opt to terminate their co-location arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of alternative strategies, including placing their servers in a physically proximate location outside the exchange's data center (which could be a competing exchange), or pursuing strategies less dependent upon the lower exchange-to-participant latency associated with co-location. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only co-location revenues but also the liquidity of the formerly co-located trading firms, which could have additional follow-on effects on the market share and revenue of the affected exchange.
The Exchange believes that the additional services and fees proposed herein would be equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because, in addition to the services being completely voluntary, they would be available to all Users on an equal basis (
The Exchange believes that the proposed charges would be reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would offer the Access and Connectivity as conveniences to Users, but in order to do so must provide, maintain and operate the data center facility hardware and technology infrastructure. The Exchange must handle the installation, administration, monitoring, support and maintenance of such services, including by responding to any production issues. Since the inception of co-location, the Exchange has made numerous improvements to the network hardware and technology infrastructure and has established additional administrative controls. The Exchange has expanded the network infrastructure to keep pace with the increased number of services available to Users, including resilient and redundant feeds. In addition, in order to provide Access and Connectivity, the Exchange would maintain multiple connections to each ATPD and ATPS, allowing the Exchange to provide resilient and redundant connections; adapt to any changes made by the relevant third party; and cover any applicable fees charged by the relevant third party, such as port fees. In addition, Users would not be required to use any of their bandwidth for Access and Connectivity unless they wish to do so.
The Exchange believes the proposed fees for Access and Connectivity would be reasonable because they would allow the Exchange to defray or cover the costs associated with offering Users access to Additional Third Party Systems and connectivity to Additional Third Party Data Feed while providing Users the convenience of receiving such Access and Connectivity within co-location, helping them tailor their data center operations to the requirements of their business operations.
The Exchange also believes that the proposal to delete obsolete text from the list of Third Party Data Feeds and the list of Third Party Systems would remove impediments to, and perfect the
For the reasons above, the proposed changes would not unfairly discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements, terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that providing Users with additional options for connectivity and access to new services would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because such proposed Access and Connectivity would satisfy User demand for access and connectivity options. The Exchange would provide Access and Connectivity as conveniences equally to all Users. The Exchange does not have visibility into whether third parties currently offer, or intend to offer, Users access to the Additional Third Party Systems and connectivity to the Additional Third Party Data Feed, as such third parties are not required to make that information public. However, if one or more third parties presently offer, or in the future opt to offer, such Access and Connectivity to Users, a User may utilize the SFTI network, a third party telecommunication network, third party wireless network, a cross connect, or a combination thereof to access such services and products through a connection to an access center outside the data center (which could be a SFTI access center, a third-party access center, or both), another User, or a third party vendor. Users that opt to use the proposed Access or Connectivity would not receive access or connectivity that is not available to all Users, as all market participants that contract with the content provider may receive access or connectivity. In this way, the proposed changes would enhance competition by helping Users tailor their Access and Connectivity to the needs of their business operations by allowing them to select the form and latency of access and connectivity that best suits their needs.
The proposed deletion of obsolete text from the list of Third Party Data Feeds and the list of Third Party Systems would update the information and increase the clarity of the Fee Schedules concerning the availability and cost of products and services available to Users. Accordingly, the proposed change would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as the public and investors would benefit from this updating and clarification.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations. Accordingly, fees charged for co-location services are constrained by the active competition for the order flow of, and other business from, such market participants. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for co-location services, affected market participants will opt to terminate their co-location arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of alternative strategies, including placing their servers in a physically proximate location outside the exchange's data center (which could be a competing exchange), or pursuing strategies less dependent upon the lower exchange-to-participant latency associated with co-location. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only co-location revenues but also the liquidity of the formerly co-located trading firms, which could have additional follow-on effects on the market share and revenue of the affected exchange. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 04/04-0297 issued to BB&T Capital Partners/Windsor Mezzanine Fund, LLC said license is hereby declared null and void.
Department of State.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of State (DOS) hereby gives notice that on November 22, 2017, it received an application from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for a Presidential permit authorizing the construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of a new border crossing at Otay Mesa East to serve the San Diego, California and Tijuana, Baja California areas, called the Otay Mesa East Port of Entry. A new port of entry in San Diego County could alleviate strain on the existing ports of entry and the local and regional transportation infrastructure.
Comments must be submitted no later than March 9, 2018 at 11:59 p.m.
For reasons of efficiency, the State Department encourages the electronic submission of comments through the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal (
Litah N. Miller, Office of Mexican Affairs, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, via email at
Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte issued a Presidential permit for a port of entry in the same location November 20, 2008. That permit is expected to expire November 20, 2018. Caltrans requested a new permit on November 22, 2017.
Under Executive Order 11423, as amended, the Secretary of State is designated and empowered to receive all applications for Presidential permits for the construction, connection, operation, or maintenance at the borders of the United States of facilities including land crossings and bridges. The Secretary of State, or his delegate, issues or denies Presidential permits under Executive Order 11423 on the basis of a national interest determination. That determination may include consideration of a range of factors, including but not limited to foreign policy; environmental, cultural, and economic impacts; and compliance with applicable law and policy.
As provided in E.O. 11423, this application is being circulated to relevant federal agencies for review and comment. Interested members of the public are invited to submit written comments regarding this application. The public comment period will end 30 days from the publication of this notice. Comments are not private. They will be posted on the site
Department of State.
Announcement of meetings; solicitation of suggestions; invitation to public session.
The Department of State and the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) are providing notice that the governments of the United States and Oman intend to hold a meeting to review implementation of the Environment Chapter of the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement (FTA), the United States-Oman Joint Forum on Environmental Cooperation (Joint Forum), and a public session in Muscat, Oman, on March 4 and 5, 2018, at a venue to be announced.
The public session will be held on March 5, 2018, in Muscat, Oman at a venue to be announced. Suggestions on the Joint Forum meeting agenda and/or the 2018-2021 Plan of Action should be provided no later than March 1, 2018, to facilitate consideration.
Those interested in attending the public session should email Tiffany Prather at
Tiffany Prather, (202) 647-4548.
The governments of the United States and Oman (the governments) created the Joint Forum pursuant to the United States-Oman Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Cooperation (MOU), signed on February 20, 2006. During the Joint Forum, the governments will discuss how the United States and Oman can work together to protect and conserve the environment, highlight past bilateral environmental cooperation, review activities under the 2014-2017 Plan of Action, and commit to a 2018-2021 Plan of Action. The Department of State and USTR invite the members of the public to submit written suggestions on items to include on the meeting agenda or in the 2018-2021 Plan of Action.
The Department of State and USTR also invite interested persons to attend a public session where the public will have the opportunity to ask about implementation of both the MOU and the Environment Chapter of the United States-Oman FTA. In the Environment Chapter of the United States-Oman FTA, the governments “recognize the importance of strengthening capacity to protect the environment and to promote sustainable development in concert with strengthening bilateral trade and investment relations” and committed to undertaking cooperative environmental activities pursuant to the MOU. In Section 2 of the MOU, the governments established the Joint Forum to coordinate and review environmental cooperation activities. As envisioned in the MOU, the Joint Forum develops Plans of Action; reviews and assesses cooperative environmental activities undertaken pursuant to the Plan of Action; recommends ways to improve cooperation; and undertakes such other activities as the Governments may deem to be appropriate. Through this notice, the United States is soliciting the views of the public with respect to the 2018-2021 Plan of Action.
Members of the public, including NGOs, educational institutions, private sector enterprises, and all other interested persons, are invited to submit written suggestions regarding items for inclusion in the meeting agendas or in the new Plan of Action. Please include your full name and identify any organization or group you represent. We encourage submitters to refer to:
• United States-Oman Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Cooperation;
• 2011-2014 Plan of Action Pursuant to the United States-Oman Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Cooperation;
• 2014-2017 Plan of Action Pursuant to the United States-Oman Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Cooperation;
• Chapter 17 of the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement;
• Final Environmental Review of the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement.
These documents are available at:
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission will hold its regular business meeting on March 8, 2018, in
The meeting will be held on Thursday, March 8, 2018, at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at The Penn Stater Hotel and Conference Center, Senate 23 Room, 215 Innovation Boulevard, State College, PA 16803.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, 717-238-0423, ext. 1312.
The business meeting will include actions or presentations on the following items: (1) Presentation on the Susquehanna Flood Forecast and Warning System; (2) presentation of the Maurice Goddard Award; (3) FY-2019 budget reconciliation; (4) ratification/approval of contracts/grants; (5) rulemaking action to codify in the Commission's regulations and strengthen the Commission's Access to Records Policy providing rules and procedures for the public to request and receive the Commission's public records; (6) report on delegated settlements; and (7) Regulatory Program projects.
The Regulatory Program projects and the final rulemaking were the subject of public hearings conducted by the Commission on February 1, 2018, and November 2, 2017, respectively; notices for which were published in 83 FR 414, January 3, 2018, and 82 FR 47407, October 12, 2017, respectively.
The public is invited to attend the Commission's business meeting. Comments on the Regulatory Program projects and the final rulemaking were subject to a deadline of February 12, 2018, and November 13, 2017, respectively. Written comments pertaining to other items on the agenda at the business meeting may be mailed to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-1788, or submitted electronically through
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Nineteenth TOC Meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of the Nineteenth TOC Meeting.
The meeting will be held March 1, 2018, 09:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW, Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
Trin Mitra, TOC Secretariat, 202-330-0665,
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given of the Nineteenth TOC Meeting. The TOC is a component of RTCA, which is a Federal Advisory Committee. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the Chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice.
On July 27, 2017, FMCSA announced the initiation of a crash preventability demonstration program in which the Agency would accept requests for data review (RDRs) to evaluate the preventability of certain categories of crashes through its national data correction system known as DataQs. This notice provides additional information to help submitters and other interested parties understand the demonstration program.
The crash preventability demonstration program began accepting RDRs on August 1, 2017, for crashes that occurred on or after June 1, 2017.
Mr. Catterson Oh, Compliance Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, Telephone 202-366-6160 or by email:
In a
On July 27, 2017, FMCSA published a subsequent
Since August 1, 2017, over 2,500 RDRs have been submitted to FMCSA. Based on the experiences operating the program for the first few months, the Agency identified some areas of the program requiring more instruction and details.
The DataQs system includes both the standard review program and the crash preventability demonstration program. Some submitters have entered crashes under the standard review program, rather than the crash preventability demonstration program, by selecting “Not an FMCSA-reportable crash” or requesting the review of an ineligible crash. A selection of “Not an FMCSA-reportable crash” is for those crashes that do not meet FMCSA's recordable crash definition of a fatality, injury, or property damage requiring a vehicle to be towed from the scene. DataQs RDRs entered into the standard review program will be closed without a preventability determination because they were not submitted under the demonstration program. Also, when an RDR is submitted for a crash that is not eligible for the demonstration program, the system will close the RDR without any action. Examples of ineligible crashes include those that do not fall under the eight types of crashes and those that occurred before June 1, 2017.
For the crash preventability demonstration program, submitters should choose “Crash could not be prevented,” ensure that the crash event date is on or after June 1, 2017, and select an eligible crash type. For more information, submitters should view the FMCSA video at
The only types of crashes that will be reviewed using the RDR process during the demonstration program are:
1. When the commercial motor vehicle (CMV) was struck by a motorist driving under the influence (or related offense);
2. When the CMV was struck by a motorist driving the wrong direction;
3. When the CMV was struck in the rear;
4. When the CMV was struck while it was legally stopped or parked, including when the vehicle was unattended;
5. When the CMV struck an individual committing or attempting to commit suicide by stepping or driving in front of the CMV;
6. When the CMV sustained disabling damage after striking an animal in the roadway;
7. When the crash was the result of an infrastructure failure, falling trees, rocks, or other debris; or
8. When the CMV was struck by cargo or equipment from another vehicle.
A significant number of RDRs submitted are, in fact, not eligible for the demonstration program. Below are examples of crash types that were submitted, and determined to be not eligible for the program:
1. Crashes that do not match any eligible crash type.
2. RDRs asserting the driver who struck the CMV was operating under the influence without any supporting evidence, such as documents showing testing results, citation, or arrest.
3. RDRs submitted for crashes identified as “struck by a motorist driving the wrong direction” where the vehicle that struck the CMV was not operating completely in the wrong lane and in the wrong direction. These crashes do not include when the vehicle that struck the CMV swerved across the center line but did not travel entirely in the wrong lane and in the wrong direction. In addition, this crash type does not include crashes at intersections, crashes with vehicles completing a U-turn, or when a vehicle traveling in the same direction as the CMV crashes into the CMV for whatever reason.
Eligible crashes include when the vehicle that struck the CMV completely crossed the median or center line and traveled into opposing traffic or was operating in the wrong direction on a divided highway.
4. RDRs for crashes where the CMV was struck in other places on the vehicle, but not in the rear. For the purposes of this demonstration program, FMCSA is defining “struck in the rear” to mean only crashes when the rear plane of the CMV was struck. Crashes where the CMV was struck on the side near the rear of the vehicle, or other places on the vehicle, are not eligible. This includes crashes where the vehicle was struck at the 7 o'clock or 5 o'clock positions.
5. RDRs for crashes when the vehicle was stopped in traffic and not legally stopped or parked.
6. RDRs alleging a suicide attempt without any supporting evidence.
7. RDRs indicating the CMV struck other vehicles stopped for a fallen tree or rocks, but the CMV did not strike the tree or rocks.
8. RDRs asserting the CMV was struck by cargo or equipment, but the documentation establishes the CMV was actually hit by another vehicle.
These parameters are needed so that the Agency can accurately and consistently assess the evaluation of crashes during the demonstration program.
Because the burden is on the submitter to show by compelling evidence that the crash was not preventable, the submitter should submit all evidence in support of the preventability determination. The Agency considers all relevant evidence submitted. FMCSA is not, however, requiring any specific documentation in support of a preventability determination.
FMCSA advised in its July 27, 2017,
1. Proof of a valid Commercial Driver's License (CDL) on the date of the crash—If the license was renewed after the crash date, FMCSA is unable to determine the license status on the date of the crash because the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) provides only the new license issuance date. If the submitter does not provide documentation of a valid CDL on the date of the crash, in response to FMCSA's request, the crash determination will be “Undecided” because FMCSA cannot confirm the driver was operating with a valid CDL.
2. Proof of a valid medical certificate on the date of the crash—If the CDLIS system indicates the medical certificate was expired on the date of the crash and evidence of a valid medical certificate on the date of the crash is not submitted in response to FMCSA's request, the crash determination will be “Undecided” because FMCSA cannot confirm the driver was operating with a valid medical certificate.
3. Proof that the driver was operating in accordance with the excepted status—If a CDL driver has an exempt license, FMCSA is requesting information about the load to confirm the driver was operating within the restrictions of the license. If the documentation of the load is not provided, the determination will be “Undecided” because FMCSA cannot confirm the driver was operating in compliance with CDL restrictions.
It is incumbent on the submitter to accurately provide the requested document such as a medical card or CDL for the date of the crash. In addition, when documents such as police accident reports and insurance papers are submitted, full copies should be provided.
If a submitter receives a determination that the crash was preventable or undecided, or the RDR is closed for another reason, the RDR may be re-opened once. The request will be reconsidered by FMCSA only if additional documentation or new information is submitted. If additional information or documentation is not provided, the RDR will be closed with the initial determination without further consideration.
Additionally, once an RDR is closed, the Agency will not be responding to additional comments submitted through the DataQs system. The RDR must be reopened and additional information submitted as cause for FMCSA to reconsider the determination.
The opportunity to collect information from other parties is critical to determining the impacts and costs of this demonstration program. During the demonstration program, if a crash review results in a preliminary determination that the crash was not preventable, the Agency will publish the crash report number, U.S. DOT number, motor carrier name, crash event date, crash event State and crash type on its DataQs website.
Any member of the public with documentation or data to refute the proposed determination has 30 days to submit the documentation through the DataQs system at
Any new documents or data will be reviewed and considered before FMCSA makes a final determination. Final determinations will be published on SMS within 60 days of the final decision.
However, based on feedback from some stakeholders, the Agency recognizes that some parties involved in the crash might not be able to provide input within 30 days. The Agency will maintain a list of not preventable final determinations on its website at
As explained in the July 17, 2017,
The crash preventability determinations made under this program will not affect any carrier's safety rating or ability to operate. FMCSA will not issue penalties or sanctions based on these determinations, nor do they establish any obligations or impose legal requirements on any motor carrier. These determinations also will not change how the Agency will make enforcement decisions.
Information submitted about a crash as part of this demonstration program may be shared with the appropriate FMCSA Division Office for further investigation. Likewise, if an investigation reveals additional information about a crash for which the demonstration program made a preventability determination, this information may be shared within the Agency and the crash subjected to further review.
Throughout this demonstration period, FMCSA will maintain data so that at the conclusion of the demonstration program, the Agency can conduct analyses. It is expected that the Agency's analyses would include, but not be limited to, the cost of operating the test and its extrapolation to a larger program; future crash rates of carriers that submitted RDRs, future crash rates of motor carriers with not preventable crashes, and impacts to SMS crash rates and improvements to prioritization.
Additionally, under 49 U.S.C. 504(f), “No part of a report of an accident occurring in operations of a motor carrier, motor carrier of migrant workers, or motor private carrier and required by the Secretary, and no part of a report of an investigation of the accident made by the Secretary, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages related to a matter mentioned in the report or investigation.” The crash preventability determinations made under this program are intended only for FMCSA's use in determining whether the program may improve the Agency's prioritization tools. These determinations are made on the basis of information available to FMCSA at the time of the determination and are not appropriate for use by private parties in civil litigation. These determinations do not establish fault or negligence by any party and are made by persons with no personal knowledge of the crash.
Motor carriers and drivers, as well as any member of the public, may submit crash preventability RDRs through the Agency's DataQs system. DataQs has been modified to provide this functionality. The DataQs system is available at:
Additional information on how to submit a crash preventability RDR is available on the Agency's website at
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval and invites public comment. The FMCSA requests approval to revise an existing ICR titled, “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery,” due to an increase in the annual cost to respondents. This ICR will allow for ongoing, collaborative and
Please send your comments to this notice by March 9, 2018. OMB must receive your comments by this date to act quickly on the ICR.
All comments should reference Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2017-0138. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to
Mr. Martin Walker, Division Chief, FMCSA, Office of Research. Telephone (202) 385-2364; or email
The surveys covered by this collection provide a means to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training, or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. The information collected from our customers and stakeholders will help ensure that users have an effective, efficient, and satisfying experience with FMCSA's programs.
The solicitation of feedback targets areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses are assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.
The Agency only submits a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
FMCSA estimates that the annual burden hour for this information collection has decreased by approximately 1,218 hours from the previously approved 3,450 hours. This is due in part to (1) discontinuing a previously OMB approved mail-based customer satisfaction survey, and (2) adding the annual Analysis, Research, and Technology sessions.
Additionally, because of discontinuing mail surveys, respondents will not incur any non-hour costs (
Under part 232 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that on January 5, 2018, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) requested the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) grant a modification of the single car air brake test procedures as prescribed in 49 CFR 232.305(a). FRA assigned the request Docket Number FRA-2018-0011.
As described in its request, the AAR Braking Systems Committee has revised and sent out for comment an updated version of AAR Standard S-486-04—
A copy of these documents and 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. All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (
•
•
•
•
Communications received by April 9, 2018, will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Pursuant to 49 CFR 232.307(d), if no comment objecting to the requested modification is received during the 60-day comment period, or if FRA does not issue a written objection to the requested modification, the modification will become effective on April 23, 2018.
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.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of establishment of public docket.
This Notice announces the establishment of FRA's emergency relief docket (ERD) for calendar year 2018. The designated ERD for calendar year 2018 is docket number FRA-2018-0013.
See Supplementary Information section for further information regarding submitting petitions and/or comments to Docket No. FRA-2018-0013.
On May 19, 2009, FRA published a direct final rule establishing ERDs and the procedures for handling petitions for emergency waivers of safety rules, regulations, or standards during an emergency situation or event. 74 FR 23329. That direct final rule became effective on July 20, 2009 and made minor modifications to 49 CFR 211.45 in FRA's Rules of Practice in 49 CFR part 211. Section 211.45(b) provides that each calendar year FRA will establish an ERD in the publicly accessible DOT docket system (available at
As detailed in section 211.45, if the FRA Administrator determines an emergency event as defined in 49 CFR 211.45(a) has occurred, or that an imminent threat of such an emergency occurring exists, and public safety
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.
Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that on January 24, 2018, SMS Rail Service 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 223. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2007-0007.
Specifically, SMS Rail Service (SLRS) is seeking an extension of its existing waiver of compliance from 49 CFR 223.11,
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 March 26, 2018 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the extension of information collections under the regulations which were issued pursuant to the Government Securities Act of 1986, as amended.
Written comments should be received on or before April 9, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for additional information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, 200 Third Street A4-A, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Requests for additional information or copies should be directed to Lori Santamorena, Government Securities Regulations Staff, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, (202) 504-3632,
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of 6 individuals and 7 entities that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons and these entities are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel. 202-622-4855; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the General Counsel: Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202-622-2410.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On February 2, 2018, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons and entities are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. ASSAF, Nabil Mahmoud (a.k.a. ASSAF, Nabil; a.k.a. ASSAF, Nabil Muhammad), Lebanon; DOB 11 Sep 1964; POB Beirut, Lebanon; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations; Gender Male (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: AL-INMAA ENGINEERING AND CONTRACTING).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for acting for or on behalf of AL-INMAA ENGINEERING AND CONTRACTING, an entity determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
2. BADR-AL-DIN, Muhammad (a.k.a. BADREDDINE, Mohamed; a.k.a. BADREDDINE, Mohammed), Iraq; DOB 12 Oct 1958; POB El Ghbayr 5, Lebanon; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations; Gender Male (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: AL-INMAA ENGINEERING AND CONTRACTING).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for acting for or on behalf of AL-INMAA ENGINEERING AND CONTRACTING, an entity determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
3. QANSU, Jihad Muhammad (a.k.a. KANSO, Jehad; a.k.a. KANSO, Jehad Mohamed; a.k.a. KANSO, Jihad; a.k.a. KANSO, Jihad Mohamad; a.k.a. KANSOU, Jihad; a.k.a. KANSOU, Jihad Mohamad; a.k.a. KANSU, Jehad; a.k.a. QANSAWH, Jehad; a.k.a. QANSO, Jehad; a.k.a. QANSU, Jihad), Jinah-Hafez Al Asad Street, Abedah Building-1st Floor, Beirut, Lebanon; Hafez Al Assaad Street, Abadi Building, 1st Floor, Jnah, Baabda, Lebanon; Hafez Al Assaad Street, Ebadi Building, 1st Floor, Jnah, Baabda, Lebanon; DOB 10 Feb 1966; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations; Gender Male; Passport RL2647015 (Lebanon); alt. Passport 127298342 (Venezuela) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: AL-INMAA ENGINEERING AND CONTRACTING).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for acting for or on behalf of AL-INMAA ENGINEERING AND CONTRACTING, an entity determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
4. QANSU, Ali Muhammad (a.k.a. KANSO, Ali Mohamed; a.k.a. KANSOU, Ali Mohamed; a.k.a. QANSU, Ali), Hafez Al Assaad Street, Abadi Building, 1st Floor, Jnah, Baabda, Lebanon; Hafez Al Assaad Street, Ebadi Building, 1st Floor, Jnah, Baabda, Lebanon; 5 Guma Valley Drive, Spur Road, Freetown, Sierra Leone; Haret Hreik, Lebanon; DOB 01 Oct 1967; POB Beirut, Lebanon; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations; Gender Male; Passport RL3504023 (Lebanon); alt.
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for acting for or on behalf of TABAJA, Adham Husayn, an individual determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
5. SAAD, Issam Ahmad (a.k.a. SAAD, Isam Ahmad; a.k.a. SAD, Isam Ahmad), Lebanon; DOB 19 Oct 1964; POB Bent Jbayl, Lebanon; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations; Gender Male; Passport LR0191548 (Lebanon) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: AL-INMAA ENGINEERING AND CONTRACTING).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for acting for or on behalf of AL-INMAA ENGINEERING AND CONTRACTING, an entity determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
6. SAAD, Abdul Latif (a.k.a. SAD, Abd-al-Latif), Iraq; DOB 10 Aug 1958; POB Bent Jbayl, Lebanon; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations; Gender Male (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: AL-INMAA ENGINEERING AND CONTRACTING).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for acting for or on behalf of AL-INMAA ENGINEERING AND CONTRACTING, an entity determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
1. BLUE LAGOON GROUP LTD. (f.k.a. BLUE LAGOON ALI KANSO GROUP (S.L.) LIMITED; a.k.a. BLUE LAGOON ALI KANSO GROUP LTD.; a.k.a. BLUE LAGOON GROUP), 65 Siaka Stevens Street, Freetown, Sierra Leone; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations; Tax ID No. 1060463-3 (Sierra Leone) [SDGT] (Linked To: QANSU, ALI MUHAMMAD).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for being owned or controlled by QANSU, ALI MUHAMMAD, an individual determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
2. DOLPHIN TRADING COMPANY LIMITED, Bob Taylor Road, Paynesville, Monrovia, Liberia; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations [SDGT] (Linked To: QANSU, ALI MUHAMMAD).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for being owned or controlled by QANSU, ALI MUHAMMAD, an individual determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
3. GOLDEN FISH LIBERIA LTD., 2nd Street Sinkor, Logan Town, Montserrado County, Monrovia, Liberia; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations [SDGT] (Linked To: QANSU, ALI MUHAMMAD).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for being owned or controlled by QANSU, ALI MUHAMMAD, an individual determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
4. GOLDEN FISH S.A.L. (OFFSHORE), Tayuni Tower No. 1251, Section 30- 3rd floor, Chath Tayuni, Lebanon; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations [SDGT] (Linked To: QANSU, ALI MUHAMMAD).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for being owned or controlled by QANSU, ALI MUHAMMAD, an individual determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
5. KANSO FISHING AGENCY LIMITED, Kissy Dockyard, Freetown, Sierra Leone; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations [SDGT] (Linked To: QANSU, ALI MUHAMMAD).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for being owned or controlled by QANSU, ALI MUHAMMAD, an individual determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
6. SKY TRADE COMPANY, Logan Town, Opposite Rice Store, Monrovia, Liberia; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations [SDGT] (Linked To: QANSU, ALI MUHAMMAD).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for being owned or controlled by QANSU, ALI MUHAMMAD, an individual determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
7. STAR TRADE GHANA LIMITED, Enyado HSE, Tema Harbour, (0537N 00001W), Tema, Ghana; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations [SDGT] (Linked To: QANSU, ALI MUHAMMAD).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for being owned or controlled by QANSU, ALI MUHAMMAD, an individual determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before April 9, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
38 CFR 3.217.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before April 9, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
38 U.S.C. 3317.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 9, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
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
By direction of the Secretary.
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 |